🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:29:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbf...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>
>> And one country can't be an "axis".
>>
>
>Unless it is the centre around which something revolves, as Google and 
>others provide as one many possible meanings of axis.

And yet the only definition of "axis" referring to countries requires
more than one.

>> He started to after the meaning of "axis" was explained to him.
>>
>
>That an axis is the centre around which something revolves? I think he 
>already knew that.

He doesn't know anything.

>Perhaps if you had some link to where somebody supposedly took him aside and 
>made this comment, we could work out what is going on. It seems strange that 
>somebody would correct him when his usage is already correct.

His current usage of "axis of evil" does involve several countries and
is correct.  As always, America gets it right after exhausting every
other possibility.

>>>>>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.
>
>But not, apparently, in this case.

In this case, as in every other case.

>>>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.
>>
>
>But not all definitions.

Not all definitions apply to countries.

>Trya nd understand that a word can have multiple meanings, and the correct 
>meaning is determined by context (I use the word "try" in its sense of 
>attempt, not in the sense of a touchdown in Rugby. Please don't crticise 
>this post because I used the the word "try" and we are not talking about 
>football, as required by one definition of "try". Don't bother taking me 
>aside and telling me "try" is also used in Rugby, according to one 
>definition).

Irrelevant.   

>>>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.
>>
>> And what are we to make of someone with so little self-respect that he
>> feels the need to lick Bush's ass?
>>
>
>I am not licking his arse. He doesn't even read aus.politics, I would think.

Nor do I, unless some idiot crossposts there.

>I am simply pointing out that your criticism is invalid, and so by 
>extension, however stupid you think Bush is, you are clearly far stupider, 
>as at least he was aware of the meaning of axis as "the point around which 
>something revolves", whereas it appears you weren't.

He is never "aware".   Most of the time he is blissfully unaware,
bordering on brain dead.