🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:59:28 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbf...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>"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.

And one country can't be an "axis".  

>>>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,

No. 

> 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.

He started to after the meaning of "axis" was explained to him.

>>> 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 (sic) term in this context; something you failed to do.

Until he decided that the axis of evil comprised at least three
distinct countries.

>>>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 sneer at your pathetic comment.

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

Don't flatter yourself by imagining that you could have thought.

>>>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. 

A Bushism.  He is known for butchering the English language, or at
least the American variation thereof.

>The criticism was 
>that an axis MUST have two points; this is clearly wrong.

An axis must consist of at least two countries, according to the one
relevant definition.

>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? 

What do you 'think' dictionary.com is?   A chatroom?

>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.

And what are we to make of someone with so little self-respect that he
feels the need to lick Bush's ass?