Re: Earthquake hits Mexico this morning

On 17 mei, 02:17, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:15:38 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 16 mei, 20:36, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:54:38 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 16 mei, 13:46, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:49:08 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 15 mei, 18:31, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:
A big earthquake with the strength of 8.1 on the Richter scale has
hit Mexico. Two million Mexicans have died and over a million are
injured. The country is totally ruined and the government doesn't
know where to start with providing help to rebuild.

The rest of the world is in shock.

Canada is sending troops to help the Mexican army control the riots.

Saudi Arabia is sending oil.

Other Latin American countries are sending supplies.

The European community (except France) is sending food and money.

The United States, not to be outdone, is sending two million
replacement Mexicans.

                                        ...Jim Thompson

Jim doesn't seem to have a problem with a joke that starts "Two
million Mexacans have died". He must know some rib-ticklers about the
Holocaust.

---
The holocaust was real, while the Mexican earthquake (as one finds out
in the punch line) was fabricated for the purpose of creating the
dichotomy which makes the joke funny, you miserable, humorless wretch.

Only an idiot with a thoroughly defective sense of humour would find
that particular punch-line funny.
Only an idiot with thoroughly defective moral sense would find it
appropriate to fabricate a joke around the death of a couple of
million human beings.

---
Since you lack any sort of a sense of humor and depend on your
perverted sense of morality to guide you, you're certainly in no
position to tell others what's "appropriate".
---

Such an idiot is obviously willing to pontificate about other people's
sense of humour, but if they were just slightly less stupid, they
wouldn't bother - who's going to pay any attention to their opinion?

---
You, for one, otherwise you wouldn't have replied.
---

Since you post included a couple of new and libelous and - as usual -
completely false claims about my opinions, I didn't really have that
option.

---
Oh, so now you're under my control and since I'm pulling the strings
it's "See what you made me do?"
---

That's one way of looking at it.

But. I could be wrong...  

Unexpected evidence of insight.

You probably find humor in 9/11 or, at the very least, "It serves them
right."

Back to completely wrong. There was nothing funny about 9/11, and none
of the people killed had done anything to deserve it.

---
Wrong again; the perpetrators certainly had.
---

The perpetrators were the killers, not the killed.

---
Jeezus, Bill, after all of your pretentious posing to a higher
consciousness and your professed ability to use written English
properly, every word you write relegates you to the ranks of the thick
fucks.

For example, I countered your statement that:

"There was nothing funny about 9/11, and none of the people killed had
done anything to deserve it."

with:

"Wrong again; the perpetrators certainly had.",

based on your statement that none of the people killed had done
anything to deserve it.

My point was that since the killers were in the milieu and were
responsible for the atrocity, _they_ deserved to be killed, which is
in contention with your claim that: ... "none of the people killed had
done anything to deserve it."

Get it?

Probably not.

You seem to have missed the point that the peopled killed in the
incident were the passive victims of the killers who actively killed
them (and incidentally themselves). The perpetrators died in the
incident, but don't count as killed. A subtle grammatical distinction,
which you clearly don't appreciate.

And - granting my antipathy to the death penalty - I wouldn't accept
that even those perpetrators deserved to be killed. Had they survived
they would certainly have deserved to be locked away for the rest of
their lives, but - granting the fallibility of any human-administered
legal system - execution is a little too irrevocable for comfort, and
dead felons can't answer questions.

Get it, you thick twit?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Quantcast