🚀 go-pugleaf

"The Re'vvrdd" <raeg...@englikonn.com.za> wrote in message 
news:45b99103.1006667@news.onetel.net.uk...
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:19:00 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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".
>
> No, he didn't.  That's why the axis of evil (nothing to do with
> terrorism) includes N. Korea.
>

No, the quote above has only one country - Iran.

>>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".
>
> They were known as the Axis powers.   Even so, that is more relevant
> to the situation under discussion than the definition you chose.
>
>>Try this on for size:
>>
>>"Iraq is the centre around which terrorism revolves".
>
> So what happened to N. Korea?
>

So you accept that the usage is correct, but now want North Korea included. 
I don't know that much terrorism revolves around North Korea, but hey if you 
think they should also be mentioned, good on you. What has this got to do 
with the usage of the word "axis", as he didn't even mention North Korea in 
the quote above.


>> 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.
>
> Bush himself is rarely aware.  He relies on his advisers.
>

Yeah, maybe, but at least he recognised that "axis" was a perfectly 
reasobable term in this context; something you failed to do.

>>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".
>
> <sneer>

Why the sneer? Because you have nothing to actually say?

I would have thought an embarrassed look and an apology would be more 
appropriate than a sneer.

>
>>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 ...
>
> So the point around which things revolve is two unlike countries,
> thousands of miles apart?    Keep digging deeper, idiot.
>

No, the quote above had only one country, Iran. Read it. The criticism was 
that an axis MUST have two points; this is clearly wrong.

Why didn't you even bother to look up the word "axis" in a dictionary to see 
if any of its meanings were applicable before criticising Bush for not 
knowing what it means? It seems he does know, and you don't. Don't feel bad; 
nobody expects you to have as good a vocabulary or be as bright as the 
President of the USA, after all, he is the President and you are (I assume) 
a nobody - perhaps if you had a better vocabulary YOU could be somebody 
important as well.