Posted by danielcarrington4 on 10/15/07 02:30

On Oct 14, 7:47 pm, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
> <danielcarringt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192314042.444297.15850@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 12:51 pm, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
> >> <danielcarringt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1192296003.510114.17510@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 12, 9:24 pm, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Drew" <whoisthatmasked...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:4710047c$0$4996$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> >> >> > Steve wrote:
> >> >> >> "Drew" <whoisthatmasked...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:470ff10d$0$20614$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >> >> >>> Damn, Steve. Put your religious beliefs aside and read the
> >> >> >>> metaphor.
>
> >> >> >> my lack of religious beliefs aside, what then, was the metaphor i
> >> >> >> missed?
> >> >> >> i thought i showed i understood the metaphore and drew the
> >> >> >> contrasts
> >> >> >> at
> >> >> >> the same time. sup?
>
> >> >> > Who's neck is the noose around?
>
> >> >> > Who is the recipient of masterfully laid snares?
>
> >> >> > What heathen is raging?
>
> >> >> > What "murderer" has fallen into his own creation?
>
> >> >> the 'heathen' of course. that would technically be the godless or
> >> >> irreligious. and though really the comment was aimed at all
> >> >> participating
> >> >> in
> >> >> the current thread, i pay particular attention to religious babble and
> >> >> actually fit the definition. so, aside from condecending to the entire
> >> >> list
> >> >> of participants for our 'raging' - which the religious tend to like to
> >> >> do,
> >> >> condecend that the rest of us just don't 'get it' and their morals are
> >> >> far
> >> >> superlative to other mortals' - i think the analogy is full of logical
> >> >> holes
> >> >> and is merely drivel. now if the kook wants to defend his position, i
> >> >> invite
> >> >> it.
>
> >> >> > Pay attention.
>
> >> >> yes, please do. why you're jumping in to say i missed the point, when
> >> >> i
> >> >> clearly got it, is beyond me.
>
> >> > You're taking it too literally. Think metaphorically.
>
> >> > Think back to the days when you read "Canterbury Tales" in school and
> >> > you'll get it. :)
>
> >> omg, eod
>
> > I'm government, son, you'll have to school me in what "eod" means.
>
> > In my world it usually means "Explosive Ordnance" detection, division,
> > disposal, deployment .... usually anything that blows up. :)
>
> i'm not your son and am probably your senior...please...no need to try and
> condecend.

Sorry for the "son" - I'm a Southerner by birthright. And after a few
too many, the drawl comes out to play.

Wasn't my intention to condescend. And I'm sorry if it came out that
way. Genuinely.

> it means end of discussion.

Ah. Gotcha. I think that I didn't get that is a high sign that I'm too
obsessive about my work.

After another few, I might just get that out of my system. :)
>
> cheers.

BTW, I don't think anyone was implying that you were being too "dense"
to understand what Giganews was saying. I know I didn't.

Perhaps I'm not as intuitive as I think I am, but I think GN was
saying that OMH has been, how you say, hoisted on his own petard.

It wasn't you GP was talking about - it was OMH. HE'S the one falling
into his own trap. It's HIS neck the noose is around. GN was just
being ... a bit flowery and poetic in his/her goosing of OMH.

FWIW, I react the same way you do about being an atheist when someone
talks about the military - might be because I'm directly affected by
budget cuts and such. Might be because you can't turn around without
SOMEONE bad-mouthing it. When you're always expecting to be slammed,
you tend to expect it. And I often do expect it.

But regardless of what anyone here thinks, I'm not out to piss anyone
off (unless it's OMH - and even then, it's a fringe benefit). Not you.
Not Jerry.

[Back to original message]