🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message 
news:45b948f6$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "The Re'vvrdd" <raeg...@englikonn.com.za> wrote in message 
> news:45b8dfd7.10984494@news.onetel.net.uk...
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 02:01:46 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>> <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>>
>>>------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C740ED.EF097630
>>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>
>>>
>>>"The Re'vvrdd" <raeg...@englikonn.com.za> wrote in message =
>>>news:45b8be46.2391208@news.onetel.net.uk...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:08:08 +0800, "mettas_mother"
>>>> <mettas_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>>Well anybody who invents axis of evil should also not have it.  =
>>>Imagine the
>>>>>stupid wars that flow out of it!
>>>>=20
>>>> GW Bush originally claimed that Eye-ran was the axis of evil...then
>>>> someone took him aside and explained that it takes two to make an
>>>> axis!
>>>>=20
>>>
>>>Thanks to google define,
>>>
>>>Definitions of axis on the Web:
>>>
>>>  a.. a straight line through a body or figure that satisfies certain =
>>>conditions=20
>>>  b.. the center around which something rotates=20
>>>  c.. the main stem or central part about which plant organs or plant =
>>>parts such as branches are arranged
>>>
>>>Hmmm, "the center around which something rotates".
>>>
>>>Looks like you are a lot stupider than you claim Bush is.
>>
>> On the contrary, it seems that a little knowledge in the hands of an
>> illiterate asshole like you is not a good thing.
>>
>> Try dictionary.com - you'll get eleven defintions in the first source
>> (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
>> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
>> 2006), the relevant one being:
>>
>> 9. an alliance of two or more nations to coordinate their foreign and
>> military policies, and to draw in with them a group of dependent or
>> supporting powers.
>>
>> And similar definitions from the other sources.
>>
>
> Bush didn't use it in the sense of an alliance. He used it in the sense of 
> "the centre around which something rotates".
>
> You can't look up the many meanings of a word, find one (like your number 
> 9) that is irrelevant, then claim the statement itself is wrong. Why 
> didn't you use the next definition of  axis as "Germany, Japan and Italy 
> during the second world war". Then your story could have been somebody 
> taking Bush aside and telling him that "Iran is not part of Germany, 
> Japan, or Italy, and the second world war finished over 60 years ago".
>
> Try this on for size:
>
> "Iraq is the centre around which terrorism revolves". You may or may not 
> agree, but it is a perfectly reasonable statement. More to the point, the 
> idiot who supposedly took him to one side and said an axis required two 
> points was unaware of this meaning (or any of the many others that don't 
> require two points).
>
> Of course, the story you told above never happened. Nobody advising the 
> President (or the President himself) is stupid enough to believe that an 
> axis must neccessarily have two points. Only you, it would appear, are 
> that stupid ... unless you can provide some evidence that somebody did 
> actually take Bush aside and say an axis needed two points; if you can 
> provide a link (ha ha), I will happily agree that the person who said that 
> an axis requires two points is as dumb as you. But not Bush himself; he 
> was clearly aware that an axis does not need two points; there are many 
> definitions of "axis" that are absolutely consistent with what he said.
>
> Incidentally, you said "try dictionary.com". I looked up "try" in 
> dictionary.com. Meaning 12 is "a score 3 points earned by advancing the 
> ball to or beyond the opponents goal line". I am taking you aside and 
> telling you that your statement that I could "try dictionary.com" is 
> nonsensical - we are not talking about ball sports. If you don't even know 
> what "try" means, you aren't going to get very far with more complicated 
> words like "axis".
>
> The joke is definitely on you. In making a joke about how stupid Bush is, 
> you muck it up because what he said is quite reasonable; you are actually 
> showing how stupid you are, because Bush clearly does know the definition 
> of an axis as the "point around which things revolve" and you clearly 
> didn't. You have proved yourself stupider than Bush; hardly surprising - 
> he is the president of the USA and you are ...

You're not terribly bright, are you webbers? Quite the dullard, in fact.




>
>
>
>
>
>
>