[Arctic_Menace]

[Jaime_Souviens]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

...

I agree. I'm as much at fault...

Mea culpa.


I'm going to go walk the cat.





.

[Dayseed]

Me: Hi! Is this the Yellowknife Helpline?

Lady: Yes, yes it is.

Me: What territory do you happened to be located in?

Lady: The Northwest Territories, where else?

Me: So, definitely NOT the Yukon?

Lady: No, only a moron would confuse the two.

Me: What kind of a moron are we taking about here?

Lady: Oh man, it would have to be one of the thickest twits around. Like imagine a person, but his head is a shiny dented anvil.

Me: Ha ha! What if this very same person also claimed that Montcalm and Wolfe were ficticious generals?

Lady: No! Really? You're shitting me. Am I on some radio gameshow?

Me: Oh wait, there's a call on the other line. Hello?

Voice: I sense that history is in trouble!

Me: Holy shit, is this famed 1st century thinker and author of the Moralia, Plutarch?

Plutarch: The very same. Is this "moron" you speak of, none other than the imbecilic gutterish dog whose insists on attributing the Maid of Orleans to a "translator"?

Me: Yeah, he also doesn't know where Yellowknife is.

Plutarch: Jupiter's loincloth! Does he not know of Von Schiller's legendary anger? Does this wench not fear the wrath of a German zombie? Von Schiller will eat his brains!

Me: He's got a thick anvilly head and less contained within. But what should I do about this guy? He whips out bad ideas faster than Galen at an autopsy!

Plutarch: Ha ha, ZING my future friend! I do not know.

Me: Yeah, hang on, there's another call coming in. Who could this be? Hello?

Voice: Sometimes when your hopes have all been shattered and there's nowhere to turn...

Me: Legendary 80's hair-rocker Stan Bush?

Stan Bush: Out of the darkness, you stumble into the light. Fighting for the things you know are right!

Me: But dipstick here is hitting the thesaurus harder than your career hit the wall after that Kumite song!

Stan Bush: Hey, I came here to help and that was a perfectly good song! Just remember, his anvil-like head can't keep up with the littany of errors he's making and he doesn't know the words he's using. For instance, he uses disarticulate in place of disassemble or deconstruct. Afterall, disarticulate is a synonym for disjoint. Plus, I'm guessing in his quick run-through the thesaurus, he missed out on what a pedant really is.

Me: He also thinks that Yellowknife is in the Yukon and he's apparently going to go and walk his cat.

Stan Bush: What an idiot! Keep on rocking there Dayseed, I believe in you!

Me: Thanks Stan Bush.

[Mustang1]

Now that was seriously funny – where is this guy’s “hilarious” medal? At the very least his material is original!

[Jaime_Souviens]

Dayseed Dayseed:

...

Well, at least you're proud of your ignorance....




.

[Dayseed]

Pat Tabler: And here's Jaime_Souviens at the plate, attempting to salvage his pride against a pitcher he's had no luck with.

$1:

Well, at least your proud of your ignorance

Pat Tabler: And it's a called third strike. Jaime_Souviens is gone and the bat never left his shoulder. That sort of ignominious embarassment doesn't wash away easily, does it legendary 80's hair-rocker Stan Bush?

Stan Bush: He didn't have the touch, he didn't have the power, when all hell was breaking loose, he wasn't riding the eye of the storm.

Pat Tabler: Well, back to the minors for Captain No-Swing. For the folks at home, score that one a dumbass. And, in our strike-and-win draw, Ted Eade of Lumsden SK wins a Napoleon BBQ for successfully knowing that Yellowknife is in the Northwest Territories.

Stan Bush: Our next trivia question is, "Were Generals Montcalm and Wolfe real or fictional? Log in with your answer for a chance to win a Simonize car-wash kit.

Pat Tabler: We'll be back with more of Jaime_Souviens striking out right after these messages.

Stan Bush: Is that guy walking his cat in the dugout?

[Mustang1]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Pat Tabler: And here's Jaime_Souviens at the plate, attempting to salvage his pride against a pitcher he's had no luck with.

$1:

Well, at least your proud of your ignorance

Pat Tabler: And it's a called third strike. Jaime_Souviens is gone and the bat never left his shoulder. That sort of ignominious embarassment doesn't wash away easily, does it legendary 80's hair-rocker Stan Bush?

Stan Bush: He didn't have the touch, he didn't have the power, when all hell was breaking loose, he wasn't riding the eye of the storm.

Pat Tabler: Well, back to the minors for Captain No-Swing. For the folks at home, score that one a dumbass. And, in our strike-and-win draw, Ted Eade of Lumsden SK wins a Napoleon BBQ for successfully knowing that Yellowknife is in the Northwest Territories.

Stan Bush: Our next trivia question is, "Were Generals Montcalm and Wolfe real or fictional? Log in with your answer for a chance to win a Simonize car-wash kit.

Pat Tabler: We'll be back with more of Jaime_Souviens striking out right after these messages.

Stan Bush: Is that guy walking his cat in the dugout?

Still funny!

[Jaime_Souviens]

Okay, Hayseed, you can't let things go, can you?

First, I'll note that this was some sort of discussion about the future of Canada. A fine discussion and one I was certainly curious about and willing to contribute to. You started in with your niggling comments, and yes, I let myself get drawn into dealing with it. Other people here complained of this contravention of the purposes of the thread. I agreed. I apologized for boring them. You could have stepped back, too. But you didn't. I think that speaks for itself.

So, second, with apologies to Artic_Menace and the whole rest of Canada Kicks Ass, I am going to respond to you.

Any Mods have a problem with this? Fine. I'd be happy to have this ended, if need be, by a third party. - This is not what I signed up for, anyway.

So much for preliminaries.

You seem to have three main problems with my posts; if I can summarize:

1) You say I said Yellowknife was in the Yukon.
2) You say I said Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious.
3) You had some issue about Carlyle and Schiller.


1).

I never said that Yellowknife was in the Yukon. It never happened. Go look at the quote. Read it. If you can find anywhere on this website or anywhere on the internet me saying Yellowknife is in the Yukon, I'll will gladly concede everything.

Go find it. I dare you.


2).

I did say Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. I'll say it again: Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction.

What have you got to support you? The primitive gruntings of Mustang1.

What do I have? The entire body of historical scholarship of the past 15 years.

I bet you don't believe me. I bet you think this is silly.

But guess what: you're wrong and I'm right. Don't believe me? Read a book....

In fact, I already dealt with this with ludicrous old curmudgeon Mustang1, (who's clearly been out of the loop on modern historical scholarship for several decades).

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

One more time, I wrote: "You are kidding right?!?!?!? You actually believe that there are alleged truths in history? EVERYTHING is open to interpretation? Perhaps the Franco-Prussian war didn’t happen, according to your erroneous logic? Maybe there was a WWII, but some are still looking into it? Canada “might have” landed on the beaches of Normandy in 1944? Holy Christ – why don’t you demonstrate how any of those events didn’t occur? Why not enlighten the rest of us (I’m sure historians are keen to see objective relativism at work in their discipline) as to how one can explain away Wolfe and Montcalm’s engagement on the Plains of Abraham on September 13, 1759. Evidently, you think it could be a fictional event?

Okay, Chuckles, here you go.
(You might want to strap yourself to your chair.)

Let's start with Wolfe and Montcalm. Yes, it was a fictional event.

Don't like the sound of that? Try reading a book.

You might want to start with Simon Schama's 'Dead Certainties'. It's been out for several years. Most intelligent people are familiar with Schama.

I added a few links so you could learn something :

http://www.granta.com/shop/product?usca ... uct_id=135
http://www.amk.ca/books/h/Dead_Certaint ... eculations
http://www.mwblack.com/essays/schama2001.pdf

But since I know people frequently are too lazy to click a link, I've included an excerpt from two other reviews below :

From Publishers Weekly
In a virtuoso performance, Harvard historian Schama underscores the abyss between experiential knowledge of an event and historical interpretations of it. This was a BOMC and QPB alternate in cloth. Photos.

From Library Journal
This book can be read on at least two levels. First, there are the two intriguing stories told by talented writer and noted historian Schama, author of Citizens ( LJ 4/1/89)-- one about the triumph and death of James Wolfe at Quebec in 1759, the second an exploration of the murder of the Boston Brahmin George Parkman in 1849. But Schama is after bigger game, and his target is the gap between a "lived event and its subsequent narration." In the chasm separating the two lies the ambiguity that obscures a more complete rendering of the past. This experiment in writing history attempts to close the gap through imagination--jumbling chronology to force the reader into more active participation in the story, and adding other voices to the usual historical narration. These include the musings of a governor of Massachusetts, the broad accents of a (fictional) soldier, and the urbane confessions of a Boston lawyer. These two "historical novellas," as Schama calls them, demonstrate the power of good storytelling in bringing history to life. Previewed in Prepub Alert , LJ 1/91; BOMC and Quality Paperback alternates.
- David B. Mattern, Papers of James Madison, Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville

The originals are at :

http://www.bostonticketexchange.com/bas ... 36131.html

Mustang1, of course, was too arrogant to stop & pause and read anything. I have my doubts about you. ---Prove me wrong. Read something.

Oh, and by the way, where does this kind of historical scholarship come from? How about Canada? Schama gets his inspiration from Margaret Atwood. Ever hear of Margaret Atwood? Some consider her the greatest Canadian writer of the late 20th century. Try her The Handmaid's Tale (1986), for the fictional nature of all history.

Schama, by the way, has an impressive biography of his own, Christ's College, Brasenose, Harvard, Columbia, CBE...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 390893.stm


3).

It seems that you ceded the Carlyle/Schiller point in your latest, (although you do mention Schiller there).

Of course, you had to give it up, because I was right there as well. I bet that really burns you up, doesn't it, Hayseed?

All your e-mails have proven is that your head is as impervious to an outside thought as Mustang1. Revel in your ignorance,...enjoy it deeply.

By the way, you were also wrong on 'disarticulate'.

Hayseed Hayseed:

For instance, he uses disarticulate in place of disassemble or deconstruct. Afterall, disarticulate is a synonym for disjoint.

'Disarticulate' is a perfectly acceptable term to refer to taking apart an argument. True, it is not used often, but since an argument is an 'articulated' thing, (in both senses of the word), then 'disarticulate' is a perfectly fine and artful way to describe taking an argument apart. ---But I might have been writing over your head. For that I apologize. I don't expect we will be having many discussions, ever, but if we ever do, I'll be sure to use simple words for you.

Do you know why else I liked the word 'disarticulate' at that point? The word also has a special usage among biologists. It's their favored word to describe cutting up small animals. You 'disarticulate' a frog. And that's you, Hayseed, a frog.

Any other questions? I'd be happy to further your education.

I think I'm going to go walk the cat.






.

[Mustang1]

Well, since this unfortunate, stupid creature has seen fit to include (in a backhanded fashion – what a little coward) me in his little sojourn into the realm of utter idiocy, I’ll respond.

$1:

“I did say Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. I'll say it again: Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction.”

And I responded with, “You are kidding right?!?!?!? You actually believe that there are alleged truths in history? EVERYTHING is open to interpretation? Perhaps the Franco-Prussian war didn’t happen, according to your erroneous logic? Maybe there was a WWII, but some are still looking into it? Canada “might have” landed on the beaches of Normandy in 1944? Holy Christ – why don’t you demonstrate how any of those events didn’t occur? Why not enlighten the rest of us (I’m sure historians are keen to see objective relativism at work in their discipline) as to how one can explain away Wolfe and Montcalm’s engagement on the Plains of Abraham on September 13, 1759. Evidently, you think it could be a fictional event?”

PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop aping other’s work and demonstrate exactly how Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED!!!!!!!!! Again I wrote, “According to your attempt at pseudo-intellectualism, countless historians have erred in concluding that a battle occurred on September 13, 1759 on the Plains of Abraham. Renowned historians from Stacey (Quebec, 1759: The Siege and the Battle – look it up, dullard) to Chartard, Parker and Colton have all erred in their conclusion about the existence of the battle, the war, the individuals and the aftermath? You are right and orthodox history is wrong? Prove it. The onus is on you to demonstrate your erroneous supposition that Wolfe and Montaclm’s engagement was a fictional event (I hope you aren’t mixing this up with historiographical analysis as that result in a further humiliation for you). You demonstrate the major flaws in the standard historical narrative” Stop hiding behind other’s work and make your moronic assault on orthodox history – we’ll all wait as this is like watching an academic train wreck – we just want to see you squashed like the insignificant bug that you are.

$1:

What have you got to support you? The primitive gruntings of Mustang1.

Ewww….”primitive gruntings”? Good one – somewhere Kevin Smith is envious. That’s it? Bring your “A” game or go home, loser.

$1:

What do I have? The entire body of historical scholarship of the past 15 years.

Then LET’S SEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Show us the legitimate peer-reviewed scholarly studies from renowned academics that ALL (you did write "entire") claim the Plains of Abraham, Montcalm and Wolfe were fictional characters. They never existed – they are figments of some bizarre collective imagination. I’m eager to see Stacey, Chartard, Steele, Morton (see his renowned “A Military History of Canada.” It was first published in 1992!!! And is now in its 4th edition) utterly demolished by your “scholarship” because according to you, Morton is wrong when he writes about Wolfe’s existence and his Conquest. Good luck with that!

$1:

“But guess what: you're wrong and I'm right. Don't believe me? Read a book..”

PROVE IT THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! You’ve dodged several salient questions that have called on you to disprove the works of Morton, Stacey, Chartard, Parker, Colton and others. You run like a little suck when confronted, so instead of childishly declaring you are “right” let’s see you prove it. Dummy.

$1:

“In fact, I already dealt with this with ludicrous old curmudgeon Mustang1, (who's clearly been out of the loop on modern historical scholarship for several decades).”

Firstly, I’m not old. The fact that you picture me as such is both presumptuous and creepy. Pervert. I’ve got some bad news for you, my witless chump; my historical training is quite recent (so is my reading list – I’ve included sources that are less than 10 years old – maybe YOU should read some GOOD books) and that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked for you to demonstrate the historical accuracy of you assertions by first critiquing the historical scholarly community – I provided you with some of the standard historians in the field (Morton and Stacey are staples of university history syllabuses – you did know that, right?) and you have failed miserably in that rather standard task to discredit their findings.

$1:

“Mustang1, of course, was too arrogant to stop & pause and read anything. I have my doubts about you”

Please. You are a disingenuous piece of trash – I asked you to substantiate your claim by adhering to a proper historical inquiry model and you ran like a little wuss. Not only that, you follow me around in a pathetic attempt to erase the fact that I schooled your historically challenged ass (it wasn’t very difficult as you are somewhat dull…okay you are worse as your geography “talents” have suggested).

Dodge this, suck!

[Jaime_Souviens]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

...

My previous post had adequate citations. Please feel free to read it.






.

[Mustang1]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

...

My previous post had adequate citations. Please feel free to read it.






.

DODGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Typical tactic from this little coward – he can’t prove his point so he resorts to pathetic, transparent stalling strategies that serve no other function than calling attention to the fact that he ventured into a dialogue that was beyond his rather limited intellect. He won’t respond because he can’t respond.

This pathetic creature (please, someone stop this intellectual Philistine from continuing as it is becoming truly sad as his pitiful arguments are consistently dismantled on a public forum…okay, that’s not entirely true as it’s fun! This twit must be into some serous intellectual masochism, as he apparently loves to get beat. Pervert.) has now become a cautionary tale. He had reached the end of his meagre intellectual tether, and instead of admitting his erroneous assumptions, he dogmatically pressed on. When confronted with his false suppositions, conclusions and piss poor methodology, he obfuscated the facts with muddled diction, aped other’s work and the piece de résistance: dodging

This simpleton wanted to portray himself as a junior member of the intelligentsia, but all you did was demonstrate his ignorance and questionable moral character. What an absolute joke.

[Tman1]

Err hate to jump in but what good is it to continually call him names to illustrate your point?

[Mustang1]

Tman1 Tman1:

Err hate to jump in but what good is it to continually call him names to illustrate your point?

Uhhh…where did I deny I called him names? Perhaps you could provide the post where I made that statement? How exactly is that an example of dodging? Besides, he made a claim, unilaterally declared it infallibility and consciously refused to address the myriad of problems inherent in his moronic attempt at historical discourse.

I wonder why you omitted that salient point?

[Mustang1]

You just changed your post - hmmm...interesting. That response was related to your original post, not the altered one.

[Dayseed]

Jaime_Souviens,

1. Yes, you did state that you didn't want Alberta to invade the Yukon and loot Yellowknife. Since you're trying to weasel out of what you wrote, in future, use the word "OR". As in, Alberta shouldn't invade the Yukon OR loot Yellowknife. By using the word "and" as the preposition, you've indicated that the second article (looting Yellowknife) is predicated on the first article (invading the Yukon). In the example, I could go to the store AND buy some gum, buying gum is dependent upon going to the store, hence "and". The intellectually void stance you're trying to take depends on the use of the word OR.

You didn't. You used AND. Besides, you also claimed I was wrong on geography. I've only ever said that Yellowknife was in the Northwest Territories. If I'm wrong on georgraphy, what is it?

The bottom line is you screwed up and I called you on it.

Score: Me 1. You 0.

2. Okay, you're just giving me the point here. Besides, I've got the McClelland & Stewart Inc 1999 edition of the Handmaid's Tale in front of me. (By the way Mr. Dipstick, the book was first published in 1985 by McClelland & Stewart, not 1986) If you'd be so kind to start your explanation of Atwood's fictional nature of history, I would love to read it. I'm sure it will be as hilarious as you walking your cat.

Score: Me 2. You 0.

3. Dude, NOBODY attributes quotes to people who translate things. Are you that big an idiot? The Maid of Orleans was written by Freidrich Von Schiller.

Wait a sec. You haven't read it, have you? Holy shit, the judges are awarding a bonus point for that one!

Score: Me 4. You 0.

4. LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR.

a) Disarticulate. You're simply wrong here. You're trying to be artful, granted, but disarticulate is a synonym for disjointed, as I said before. It denotes a physical disjointing. That's disJOINTing, not disJOINing. Get it yet? If you cut something up at the joints, you've disarticulated it. You didn't write over my head, you just cruised through the thesaurus without fully understanding what you were reading. You've assumed that disarticulate is the antithesis of articulate. It isn't. I can't help it if you don't know this. My point.

b) You're not a biologist evidently. The word you're looking for is "dissection." Go ahead, challenge me on this one. It'll be hilarious.
That's another point for me.

c) I'm a frog? Oh no! Be careful putting away your rapier-sharp wit there Voltaire, I wouldn't want you to cut yourself on it! My point.

Score: Me 7. You 0.

5. OVERALL HUMOUR.

a) Dude, you're the lacklustre, tired, worn and beaten Katherine Hellmond to my sassy, spunky "Always on the A-Game" Rue McClanahan. Another point to me. Hayseed? Shit, if you had any points by now, I would deduct one just for the lameness.

Legendary 80's hair-rocker Stan Bush, what's the final tally?

Stan Bush: It's Dayseed 8 and Jaime_Souviens 0.

Rock on Stan Bush, rock on.

You've got a lot on your plate now Jaime_Souviens, aka Captain No-Swing, aka Dipstick, but I'm here for you. I'm encouraging you to keep reaching for that rainbow! Sure it looks really high, but you're special and you can do whatever you put your mind to! Come on Jaime_Souviens, be that special boy you want to be!