[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Proverbs 29:9.[/quote]
Indeed. [/quote]
An example, in the original of an (intentional) four-way amphibulous construction.
When a wise man and a dolt contend, (he) rages and does not achieve contentment (calm).
The “he” is understood. But which is the “he?” Which is the rager, and which cannot achieve satisfaction and calm?[/quote]
I see what y’all are doing. I have learned my lesson.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Proverbs 29:9.[/quote]
Indeed. [/quote]
An example, in the original of an (intentional) four-way amphibulous construction.
When a wise man and a dolt contend, (he) rages and does not achieve contentment (calm).
The “he” is understood. But which is the “he?” Which is the rager, and which cannot achieve satisfaction and calm?[/quote]
The dolt is the rager. A wise man seldom rages.
Not saying that he always finds contentment, either.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The economy is recovering so well, the inactivity rate for males aged 15-54 has hit an all-time high.
What is the inactivity rate?
[/quote]
The proportion of, in this case, males who are not in the labor force. These are people who wish to work but have given up looking for jobs and aren’t collecting unemployment. Presumably, most males in this age group wish to have a job so the fact it is this high is not good.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Proverbs 29:9.[/quote]
Indeed. [/quote]
An example, in the original of an (intentional) four-way amphibulous construction.
When a wise man and a dolt contend, (he) rages and does not achieve contentment (calm).
The “he” is understood. But which is the “he?” Which is the rager, and which cannot achieve satisfaction and calm?[/quote]
The dolt is the rager. A wise man seldom rages.
Not saying that he always finds contentment, either.
[/quote]
So says RObert Alter; so we see in dmaddox’s recent exchange.
(Rashi differs–about Proverbs, not about TNation forums.)
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The economy is recovering so well, the inactivity rate for males aged 15-54 has hit an all-time high.
What is the inactivity rate?
[/quote]
The proportion of, in this case, males who are not in the labor force. These are people who wish to work but have given up looking for jobs and aren’t collecting unemployment. Presumably, most males in this age group wish to have a job so the fact it is this high is not good.
[/quote]
Thanks because I looked in the chart and it just kept say “inactivity rat”.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Proverbs 29:9.[/quote]
Indeed. [/quote]
An example, in the original of an (intentional) four-way amphibulous construction.
When a wise man and a dolt contend, (he) rages and does not achieve contentment (calm).
The “he” is understood. But which is the “he?” Which is the rager, and which cannot achieve satisfaction and calm?[/quote]
The dolt is the rager. A wise man seldom rages.
Not saying that he always finds contentment, either.
[/quote]
So says RObert Alter; so we see in dmaddox’s recent exchange.
(Rashi differs–about Proverbs, not about TNation forums.)
[/quote]
Now are yall just rubbing salt in the wounds? lol
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-yemen-strike-idUSBRE9BB10O20131212
Today’s serving of “Hope & Change”
[/quote]
I would love to blame this on Obama, but any President is going to have this issue, if the use of drones to strike are increasingly used. There will be “Collateral Damage.”
It is either Drones or Boots on the Ground. Most people will vote for Drone Strikes. [/quote]
I’m just saying, this isn’t hope, nor change…
And I’m well aware had anyone else won in 2008 or 2012 this same strike would have taken place. Our government sucks.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-yemen-strike-idUSBRE9BB10O20131212
Today’s serving of “Hope & Change”
[/quote]
I would love to blame this on Obama, but any President is going to have this issue, if the use of drones to strike are increasingly used. There will be “Collateral Damage.”
It is either Drones or Boots on the Ground. Most people will vote for Drone Strikes. [/quote]
I’m just saying, this isn’t hope, nor change…
And I’m well aware had anyone else won in 2008 or 2012 this same strike would have taken place. Our government sucks. [/quote]
In this instance I agree.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Proverbs 29:9.[/quote]
Indeed. [/quote]
An example, in the original of an (intentional) four-way amphibulous construction.
When a wise man and a dolt contend, (he) rages and does not achieve contentment (calm).
The “he” is understood. But which is the “he?” Which is the rager, and which cannot achieve satisfaction and calm?[/quote]
The dolt is the rager. A wise man seldom rages.
Not saying that he always finds contentment, either.
[/quote]
So says RObert Alter; so we see in dmaddox’s recent exchange.
(Rashi differs–about Proverbs, not about TNation forums.)
[/quote]
Now are yall just rubbing salt in the wounds? lol
[/quote]
The interesting thing about this verse is that it has been translated and interpreted in a number of different ways. The Latin Vulgate literally says “A wise man, if with a fool contends, whether he rages or laughs, he will not find repose” (vir sapiens si cum stulto contenderit sive irascatur sive rideat non inveniet requiem) implying that the rager or laugher would be the wise man. But the original Aramaic, as Doc implies, is ambiguous (or amphibolous, which is a delicious adjective) in its use (or rather absence) of pronouns in the second and third clauses, and a similar construction in Ecclesiastes makes it pretty clear that it’s the fool that we’re talking about.
The upshot, though, is summed up in the modern folksy version of the proverb. “Never argue with an idiot: he will drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience.”
Wise words indeed, and so rarely heeded here on Pee Dubya Eye.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Proverbs 29:9.[/quote]
Indeed. [/quote]
An example, in the original of an (intentional) four-way amphibulous construction.
When a wise man and a dolt contend, (he) rages and does not achieve contentment (calm).
The “he” is understood. But which is the “he?” Which is the rager, and which cannot achieve satisfaction and calm?[/quote]
The dolt is the rager. A wise man seldom rages.
Not saying that he always finds contentment, either.
[/quote]
So says RObert Alter; so we see in dmaddox’s recent exchange.
(Rashi differs–about Proverbs, not about TNation forums.)
[/quote]
Now are yall just rubbing salt in the wounds? lol
[/quote]
The interesting thing about this verse is that it has been translated and interpreted in a number of different ways. The Latin Vulgate literally says “A wise man, if with a fool contends, whether he rages or laughs, he will not find repose” (vir sapiens si cum stulto contenderit sive irascatur sive rideat non inveniet requiem) implying that the rager or laugher would be the wise man. But the original Aramaic, as Doc implies, is ambiguous (or amphibolous, which is a delicious adjective) in its use (or rather absence) of pronouns in the second and third clauses, and a similar construction in Ecclesiastes makes it pretty clear that it’s the fool that we’re talking about.
The upshot, though, is summed up in the modern folksy version of the proverb. “Never argue with an idiot: he will drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience.”
Wise words indeed, and so rarely heeded here on Pee Dubya Eye.
[/quote]
Sometimes I argue for argues sake. I would like to hone my ability to put my thoughts down in writing. I am not good at it at all, but if you look at some of my first posts here 4-5 years ago I have come a long way. At least I think I have. I like to discuss topics so both parties can benefit from the discussion.
Even though VT and I went at it, I learned a lot both on the topic and personally.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/probation-sentence-dui-wreck-stirs-ire-21188282
I thought Texas was supposed to be tough on crime?
[quote]WN76 wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/probation-sentence-dui-wreck-stirs-ire-21188282
I thought Texas was supposed to be tough on crime?[/quote]
Well, it is, as long as it’s being committed by someone who is poor, brown, or both.
What do you want to bet that Couch’s daddy made a sizable contribution to the District Judge Jean Boyd Retirement Fund?
[quote]WN76 wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/probation-sentence-dui-wreck-stirs-ire-21188282
I thought Texas was supposed to be tough on crime?[/quote]
Affluenza? For fuck’s sake, what would the penalty have been for a McDonald’s workers kid?
“Don’t throw the book at him, some rich kids just can’t catch a break!”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…
The upshot, though, is summed up in the modern folksy version of the proverb. “Never argue with an idiot: he will drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience.”
Wise words indeed, and so rarely heeded here on Pee Dubya Eye.
[/quote]
Which is only a paraphrase of Proverbs 26, and is my reference for the ambivalent (not amphibulous) argument with fools:
“4. Do not answer a fool according to his folly lest even you become like him.
5. Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his sight.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]WN76 wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/probation-sentence-dui-wreck-stirs-ire-21188282
I thought Texas was supposed to be tough on crime?[/quote]
Well, it is, as long as it’s being committed by someone who is poor, brown, or both.
[/quote]
Don’t forget mentally handicapped.
The idiots in California strike again.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What do you want to bet that Couch’s daddy made a sizable contribution to the District Judge Jean Boyd Retirement Fund?[/quote]
this times infinity.
If this was a jury trial this boy does not get off. He goes to jail a very long time.
I hope those families sue the ever living crap out of the kid and the father. He is under 18 so the parents are on the hook.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The idiots in California strike again.
I love Sriracha sauce. That stuff it 10 times better and tastier than any other hot sauce.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The idiots in California strike again.
I love Sriracha sauce. That stuff it 10 times better and tastier than any other hot sauce.[/quote]
It’s one of my favorites. It’s great on pizza. Imagine though the horror upon realizing your chili sauce had peppery fumes emanating from it. The real horror is the people who complained about this have a legal right to vote and walk free amongst the public.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
The idiots in California strike again.
I love Sriracha sauce. That stuff it 10 times better and tastier than any other hot sauce.[/quote]
It’s one of my favorites. It’s great on pizza. Imagine though the horror upon realizing your chili sauce had peppery fumes emanating from it. The real horror is the people who complained about this have a legal right to vote and walk free amongst the public.[/quote]
It is incredible on pizza. You are making me hungry.
It is one thing to complain, it is another to ask the government to make them stop producing. I really doubt they built their factory in the middle of town. The town moved toward the factory, and now no you can not do this. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!