Subject: Re: Aztec Temple Feast

From: [email-masked] (Conrad Claus)
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 01:41:31 GMT

C.A. wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]> Conrad Claus,
: [email-masked] writes:
: >hmmm...well as what I said was that there was no widespread desire in
: the 
: >US to annex or conquer Mexico, I think you should reread what I posted.  
: >First, common english usage would indicate I was talking about Mexico as 
: >a whole.  Further, the parts taken, though definitly part of the old 
: >Spanish dominions claimed by Mexico, were packed full of Anglo settlers.
:  
: >The US moved to annex these, limited areas, only after the settlers 
: >living there had formented trouble and had brought about a conflict with 
: >Mexico.  

:   And the United States had no intentions to expand its dominions; it was 
: just trying to re-establish peace and order in a land that, well, was 
: practically "American" anyway, with all those nice land-owners from 
: Virginia and their hardly-mercenary troops in their pretty latifundia.
: Damned Mexicans, who were they kidding? It was all-American all along.

No.  It means that, as I said, the US public, as a whole, did not 
want to annex these lands.  That conflict between anglo settlers and the 
mexican authorities was what raised public opinion and desire for the 
conflict with Mexico.  Saying that the land was seized after a war is not 
the same thing as saying that the war was started to take the land.  
Frankly, the US governement went to great efforts to keep US settlers out 
of Mexican areas.  That the US government sided with these settlers, even 
though the settlers might have been completly in the wrong, is 
understandable.  The settlers still liked to fancy themselves as 
"Americans" and there was much public sympathy in the US for them.  I 
suggest that if this is not clear you: 1 - reread and then reread what I 
posted again; 2 - Read up a little of the social and political situation 
in the US during that period.  The idea that you might twist what someone 
says to make a inflammatory and emotional statement to make yourself feel 
good is somewhat offensive and childish.  Either address what people are 
saying or address what you, in your wisdom, feel are the underlying 
assmuptions or motives of the person making the statement.  Doing either 
of those things is intellectually honest and respectable.  To instead, 
either from malice or stupidity, misstate what a person posted so that 
one might make their own point is not only intellectually backrupt, it is 
dishonest.

: >As for the land being "ultra-fertile" land.  Well, once most of the land 
: >got water on it and a transportation network developed to exploit the
: land, 
: >it was "arable" land.  In terms of being "ultra-fertile,"  much of that
: land 
: >still basically needs tons of subsidized water and chemicals to be 
: >economically viable.  Not that I believe in the idea that the person or 
: >nation most able to take advantage of a resource should get title to it.
:  
: >I just think a statement like "ultra-fertile" is somewhat inflammatory 
: >and misleading. 

:   Oh!, then Mexico should thank the United States for having helped it to
: get rid of a useless, water-starved tract of land that was poor in
: natural 
: resources. Who needs petroleum, uranium, trout, timber, iron, gold, 
: platinum, shrimp, gypsum, rivers, and unavailing things like those,
: anyway?

Again, you are, either from ignorance or malice, totally misstating what 
I said.  Let us recap... you called the land "ultra-fertile," I responded 
that the land is generally not even arable without lots of expensive 
water and fertilizers.  You respond with this tripe about shrimp, 
petroleum, platinum, etc.  When were we talking about natural resources?  
I was talking about your mischaracterization of the land as 
"ultra-fertile."  Being called on the innaccuracy of your low pandering 
to emotional impact on that statement, you are now, under cover of 
responding to my SPECIFIC statement about the arability of the land, 
bringing in any natural resource you can think of.  Give it a rest.  
Either respond to what people have specifically said, rather than trying to 
twist it as much as possible to make a emotional statement of now worth, 
or have the guts and honesty to bring up the new point without implying
that your little tirades are true responses to anything anyone has ever 
brought up. 

: >Hmmm..you are perfectly aware of "my expertise in the disciplines of 
: >history and sociology (among many others,)..."  Well I really cannot
: make 
: >out what you are trying to say, perhaps you should write a little more 
: >clearly, professionally.  However, I guess you mean that as a
: compliment, 
: >so I will thank you.  I do feel constrained to point out though, that 
: >you, sir, do not know me.  I have never even heard of you before, and we 
: >certainly have never had a discussion.  So, unless you have somehow 
: >obtained a copy of my resume, I am not sure how you can be "perfectly 
: >aware" of anything about me.  Now, being that you decided to pay me a 
: >compliment, perhaps I can reciprocate with some advice:  First, make
: your 
: >statements about other people based upon knowledge, and make them 
: >understandable - to do otherwise makes one look like an idiot; Second, 
: >strive to be polite when the thread in running in a polite vein, to do 
: >otherwise makes one look like a jerk; Third, read (and in your case, 
: >reread) any post you object to, carefully frame your objections, being 
: >carefull not to use emotional buzzwords for impact - to do otherwise 
: >makes you appear as an idiot and a jerk pushing an agenda with 
: >useless propaganda.
: >
: >Lastly, yes I know there are perhaps 10 to 12 nations in the Carribean 
: >that have English as their official language.  further, i am aware that 
: >English is the most widespead (geographically) language in the world.
: >
: >Now, pray tell what does this have to do with the thread, we were 
: >discussing?  Fact is, I didn't feel that all the other places that spoke 
: >English (even in the Americas) were all that germain to the discussion.  
: >Given the small size (population wise) of the nations we are talking 
: >about, I felt it would be OK to leave them out of the discussion.  Well, 
: >as you were nice enough to pay me a rather inept compliment, I will 
: >return the favor and bow to PC. From now on I will not forget to mention 
: >the dozen or so Carribean nations when discussion of this issue comes up 
: >again (hopefully not anytime soon.)
: >
: >Conrad

:  You, Sir, are an idiot. You are not even able to recognize sarcasm in 
: its simplest form.

Oh, I recognize saracasm in its lowest, most clumsy form all right.  
Seems that you might not though.  Let us recap.  You try to make a crude, 
incredibly clumsy sarcastic attack - I respond to you with my own 
sarcastic remark or two  - you then say "you are an idiot because you 
cannot recognize saracsm."  Hmmm...perhaps I would have more effectively 
got my own response to your lowbrow sarcasm across if I had not tried to 
use a method of conveying my message that required a modicum of 
intelligence from the recipient.  I should have just called you a few 
names, using small words so you would not misundertand too many of them, 
and hoped you could undertand that.  I guess for the sake of increased 
communication I should make it clear to you...I WAS BEING SARACASTIC TOO 
AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT FOR NOT SEEING THAT.  Now, were those words small 
enough?  Was I insulting enough for you to understand.

:  I doubt anybody would need to see your resume to realize that you are
: a bombastic and pedantic fool. Even a nun is capable of recognizing self-
: righteouss, overblown windbags like you from as far as twenty-thousand 
: leagues away. Have a good day.

       :->

Well here we go again.  Some personal insults that establish nothing more 
than your ability to be offensive and make statements off the cuff with 
no data.  I guess with a statement like that I gotta bow to your superior 
intellect and appolagize for ever making statemetns that you obviously 
disagreed with (though were apparently too stupid to dispute or address 
in any way).  I suppose if you say enough insulting things you will 
finally be correct?  

Now, I dont want you to feel too bad.  I realize that for people who have 
no real character or intellectual capability, screaming emotionally about 
something makes them feel like their knowledge is not so lacking or their 
mind so empty. I suppose the theory is that the next best thing to 
knowing something is FEELING strongly about something.  Thus, I concede 
the point that you indeed do feel strongly about this.  However, you are 
going to have to babble your insults a little longer before I will conced 
you KNOW anything.

Conrad
--

---

From: [email-masked] (Charlie Sorsby)
Date: 13 May 1994 15:22:02 GMT

As interesting as this argument about annexation of the
southwestern US may be to you and your co-arguers, what has it to
do with food, historic or otherwise?

I don't mind a good debate, even if off the subject, but this is so
riddled with petty sniping that it doesn't qualify.

Please delete rec.food.historic from your Newsgroups: line.

-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  [email-masked]