🚀 go-pugleaf

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

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.


>>>>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.

>
>>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.

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).

>>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.

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.