K-9 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Fixed...since Borders is no mas... That was the elegance of the joke. But thanks.
Heels20X6 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Does it really matter what the nationality of the writer is? What really matters are the two questions I asked you. Your responses are eerily similar to a pBill's or lybob response. Anyway, if you had to guess would you think the pseudonym saved the author's life? As far as accuracy goes, what do you think of the comparisons that were made? Why? The comparisons were made to appeal to the ignorant and the idiotic. I see they've found their audience. This is what Tom said it is: horsesh!##.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 If you wrote an inflammatory email with cherry picked "facts" that basically claimed 20% of the world's population were terrible people and another race was better in every way, would you put your real name on it? My understanding is the original article was posted in an on-line newspaper. Race has nothing to do with it. It's a comparison between jews and muslims. With that said I see I got sucked into using the term arab in an earlier post in this thread and since it is too late to edit it I must confess to my error. Anyway, if I wrote this inflammatory article I would be scared shipless to to not use a pseudonym. Now if I praised the muslim world over the jewish world I wouldn't think twice about using my real name. I wonder why?
LeviF Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Listen, you manipulated words and put them in as a quote from me. You may think that nobody believes that but at some point in time that quote will be brought up. Regardless, it's just not a cool thing to do. Fine, I can't believe the level of paranoia there, but fair enough. I've been more paranoid in my life, I suppose. Let's have a grown-up conversation. Now what do you think of the statement by Benjamin Netanyahu that "If arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the jews put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel". Do you agree? Also, what in the article do you specifically disagree with? If "arabs" put down their weapons there would most certainly still be violence. What, because 320 million people decide to stop shooting things and blowing things up, we'll have world peace? The idea is asinine. I largely disagree with the conclusion of the piece (Muslims are ruining Europe and contribute nothing) because it doesn't at all follow the premise that Muslims have only 7 Nobel prizes between them. I also disagree with his use of the number of Nobel prizes as a measure of anything besides a number of Nobel prizes. I also disagree with his idea that the gates were thrown open to Muslims because Hitler killed lots of Jews. I also disagree with his pigeonholing of all Muslims as "lazy" or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "criminal." I guess I disagree with about everything in it, actually, just because this man's clearly displayed ignorance belies anything legitimate he might have to say. Meanwhile, I find funny the author's lamenting about his "beautiful Spanish cities" being turned into "the third world," when it was Muslims who built many of those cities in the first place. Also, I still fail to see how all Muslims in Spain are plotting the death of all Spaniards.
Booster4324 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 This might be the original article. Note it is from 2004 if so. Also note that the whole bit about Nobel prizes isn't there. At a guess grafted on later.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 Fine, I can't believe the level of paranoia there, but fair enough. I've been more paranoid in my life, I suppose. If "arabs" put down their weapons there would most certainly still be violence. What, because 320 million people decide to stop shooting things and blowing things up, we'll have world peace? The idea is asinine. I largely disagree with the conclusion of the piece (Muslims are ruining Europe and contribute nothing) because it doesn't at all follow the premise that Muslims have only 7 Nobel prizes between them. I also disagree with his use of the number of Nobel prizes as a measure of anything besides a number of Nobel prizes. I also disagree with his idea that the gates were thrown open to Muslims because Hitler killed lots of Jews. I also disagree with his pigeonholing of all Muslims as "lazy" or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "criminal." I guess I disagree with about everything in it, actually, just because this man's clearly displayed ignorance belies anything legitimate he might have to say. Meanwhile, I find funny the author's lamenting about his "beautiful Spanish cities" being turned into "the third world," when it was Muslims who built many of those cities in the first place. Also, I still fail to see how all Muslims in Spain are plotting the death of all Spaniards. Netanyahu's statement was referring to the arab/jewish conflicts only. Don't broaden it mean the whole world. If the author was meaning that all muslims are lazy, ignorant, stupid or criminal then I would have to disagree with him strongly. There is something to be said though about their lack of recent contributions to society and their intolerance for people different than they are. I don't mean that all are like that. Their religion teaches that I am an infidel because I am not Muslim and therefore am a second class person. They want me to change to their standards while all I am telling them is leave me alone and don't go around harming other people.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Fixed...since Borders is no mas... No big loss there.
Booster4324 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 No big loss there. It is a reading thing...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 It is a reading thing... Two words: Barnes & Noble.
Chef Jim Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Two words: Barnes & Noble. But one less bookstore sucks. The Borders near us in SF closed down and it sucks. Not sure where the nearest Barnes adn Noble is.
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Two words: Barnes & Noble. Borders had a much better (i.e. more diverse) selection. Which is one of the reasons they failed. I used to love going in there and just browsing the military history section for two hours...three full stacks, each maybe 12 feet long. Problem for them was: that was just about all I browsed. They basically appealed to thirty different niche markets, not the mass market. The biggest reason they failed, though, is that they decided to embrace the electronic era by partnering with friggin' Amazon. Your online competitor is experiencing triple-digit growth in your marketplace, and your solution is to hand them your online segment?
IDBillzFan Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Borders had a much better (i.e. more diverse) selection. Which is one of the reasons they failed. I used to love going in there and just browsing the military history section for two hours...three full stacks, each maybe 12 feet long. Problem for them was: that was just about all I browsed. They basically appealed to thirty different niche markets, not the mass market. The biggest reason they failed, though, is that they decided to embrace the electronic era by partnering with friggin' Amazon. Your online competitor is experiencing triple-digit growth in your marketplace, and your solution is to hand them your online segment? They may be gone by you, but we have two near our house we visit quite often. Coffee houses built inside. Free WiFi. Always a crowd. On the other hand, they're the ONLY bookstore around here, which probably explains a lot.
LeviF Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Netanyahu's statement was referring to the arab/jewish conflicts only. Woops, didn't go back and re-read it in context. My bad.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 Woops, didn't go back and re-read it in context. My bad. Fair enough. Do you think the statement is accurate though?
boyst Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 They may be gone by you, but we have two near our house we visit quite often. Coffee houses built inside. Free WiFi. Always a crowd. On the other hand, they're the ONLY bookstore around here, which probably explains a lot. The problem is that they're not buying. Browsing through the books, using the wifi and lounging around for a few hours is not covered by a $8 cup of coffee. People talk about how song artists and video producers and actors have been recently been ripped off; what about the printed author? When JK Rowling tops the charts then we know there is a problem. And, Dan Brown?! I hardly consider that a true artists rendering of work. I like his books, but who doesn't. They pander to everyone.
outsidethebox Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Borders had a much better (i.e. more diverse) selection. Which is one of the reasons they failed. I used to love going in there and just browsing the military history section for two hours...three full stacks, each maybe 12 feet long. Problem for them was: that was just about all I browsed. They basically appealed to thirty different niche markets, not the mass market. The biggest reason they failed, though, is that they decided to embrace the electronic era by partnering with friggin' Amazon. Your online competitor is experiencing triple-digit growth in your marketplace, and your solution is to hand them your online segment? The reason they probably went out of business is freeloaders like you spending 2 hours reading instead of spending, cheap ass.
LeviF Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Fair enough. Do you think the statement is accurate though? For the most part, probably. Although if the belligerent Arab states laid down their arms I wouldn't be surprised if Israel went on the offensive.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 For the most part, probably. Although if the belligerent Arab states laid down their arms I wouldn't be surprised if Israel went on the offensive. Why would they want to go on the offensive? Israel's wars have been for self preservation, not conquest or desire to annihilate some other country.
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 The reason they probably went out of business is freeloaders like you spending 2 hours reading instead of spending, cheap ass. I never picked up a book and read any meaningful amount of it without buying it. And I never browsed without spending at least $100. I spend more on books in a month than most of you illiterates spend annually on beer. Why would they want to go on the offensive? Israel's wars have been for self preservation, not conquest or desire to annihilate some other country. Strictly in the interests of playing devil's advocate... "Except Palestine"
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 I spend more on books in a month than most of you illiterates spend annually on beer. That's impossible.
Recommended Posts