Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior

Off Topic
41

[quote]Waylander wrote:

My Avi is a mirror to your soul. If you are disturbed, you are only disturbed by your own introspection! I have always found cats to be a sly bunch. They always look at me in a way to say if I dropped dead, they would eat my corpse.[/quote]

Its your analysis that is disturbing, not the dog. Dogs are sycophants. Have you ever heard of a dog being disgusted by its owners bahaviour? You could come home, sit down and puke all over yourself, a dog would lick the vomit off you. No cat would do that! A cat would look at you, think to itself that your pain means nothing to it, and when the hell are you going to open the damn fridge! Yes they will eat your corpse. I’ve just got to respect that.

42

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:
Yes they will eat your corpse. I’ve just got to respect that.[/quote]

I like dogs, but for the most part theyre dumb. Cats are respectable due to the fact if you let them go in the wild, they’d be ok (hunting, killing, doing their thing).

Dogs, not so much.

43

[quote]four60 wrote:
At 16 I owned 5 pairs of Lee denim in different colors. [/quote]

Lol.

46

George Washington has been named as the greatest foe ever faced by the British.

The American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country’s most outstanding military opponent.

He was one of a shortlist of five leaders who topped a public poll and on Saturday was selected as the ultimate winner by an audience of around 70 guests at a special event at the museum, in Chelsea, west London.

In second place was Michael Collins, the Irish leader, ahead of Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

At the event, each contender had their case made by a historian giving a 40 minute presentation. The audience, who had paid to attend the day, then voted in a secret ballot after all five presentations had been made.

Dr Stephen Brumwell, who had championed Washington, said: “As British officers conceded, he was a worthy opponent.”

Full Story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9204961/George-Washington-named-Britains-greatest-ever-foe.html

47

857×652 268 KB

Yo Washington, I’m really happy for you and Imma let you finish, but Erwin Rommel was Britain’s most outstanding military opponent of all time.

48

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
what does he say aboutbuying humans and forcing them to work from birth to death?

probably something like

“fuckin n*ggers” I bet

or about opium?

“take it to the face, bro!!!”

or trying to make himself king of america?

“yall mafacas bout to bow down n shit yo”

I will never trust a person that tres to be good all the time. They’re usually hiding some dark shit…

give me a man that lives as an animal any day, at least he’s honest and you know what to expect or how to deal with him…these sly and “do the right thing” fuckers will poison you slowly [/quote]

Yea. Washington sure was poisonous, walking away from potential absolute power after nearly singlehandedly winning the war that created a country that not only was to become the first true republic, but inspired a wave of revolutions, and whose creation reverberated across the ages.

Yep. Pure poison.

Sometimes you seem so intelligent and I start thinking you’re people, and then you go and drink from the toilet again.

[/quote]

Only a sheer, unadulterated, uneducated, shit-eating fool would have made the the stupid post that Count Breakfast Cereal made.[/quote]

I think he has a point. Someone who doesn’t know how he “should” act only has what comes to him naturally to base his actions on. In this way, he is trust worthy as all his actions are genuine. A person conditioned with a whole slew of “oughts” will act deceivingly. Even if their purpose for being deceiving is “good”, they are a less trust-worthy person in so far as they know how to play on social politics.

I, too, prefer the company of people who only act genuinely. At least then I will know almost immediately if I like this person or not.

49

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Only a sheer, unadulterated, uneducated, shit-eating fool would have made the the stupid post that Count Breakfast Cereal made.[/quote]

I think he has a point. Someone who doesn’t know how he “should” act only has what comes to him naturally to base his actions on. In this way, he is trust worthy as all his actions are genuine. A person conditioned with a whole slew of “oughts” will act deceivingly. Even if their purpose for being deceiving is “good”, they are a less trust-worthy person in so far as they know how to play on social politics.

I, too, prefer the company of people who only act genuinely. At least then I will know almost immediately if I like this person or not. [/quote]

Lets go through this again.

  1. He was 16. He was just an Emo kid writing stuff down. Get over it.
  2. All kids need instruction on how to act.
  3. Just because someone who acts in a good and decent way is actually a bastard is not an argument against acting in a good and decent way.
  4. The Counts objections were far more an attack on George Washington than a repudiation of the rules of etiquette. I certainly found that objectionable and I’m not a Yank!
50

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Only a sheer, unadulterated, uneducated, shit-eating fool would have made the the stupid post that Count Breakfast Cereal made.[/quote]

I think he has a point. Someone who doesn’t know how he “should” act only has what comes to him naturally to base his actions on. In this way, he is trust worthy as all his actions are genuine. A person conditioned with a whole slew of “oughts” will act deceivingly. Even if their purpose for being deceiving is “good”, they are a less trust-worthy person in so far as they know how to play on social politics.

I, too, prefer the company of people who only act genuinely. At least then I will know almost immediately if I like this person or not. [/quote]

Lets go through this again.

  1. He was 16. He was just an Emo kid writing stuff down. Get over it.

  2. All kids need instruction on how to act.

  3. Just because someone who acts in a good and decent way is actually a bastard is not an argument against acting in a good and decent way.

  4. The Counts objections were far more an attack on George Washington than a repudiation of the rules of etiquette. I certainly found that objectionable and I’m not a Yank!
    [/quote]

  5. I don’t care. Who is putting forth these ideas and at what age don’t matter to me at all.

  6. That’s not self evident and the extent to which this is true, assuming it is, is highly debatable.

  7. I agree, good thing that’s not what I’m saying now, isn’t it? ^-^

  8. I don’t care about any of this Washington stuff. I agree with Count in so far as I think genuine behaviour is superior to behavioural conformity. Maybe I would agree with him on Washington’s character, maybe I wouldn’t, it’s simply not a topic I care to get into now.

51

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Only a sheer, unadulterated, uneducated, shit-eating fool would have made the the stupid post that Count Breakfast Cereal made.[/quote]

I think he has a point. Someone who doesn’t know how he “should” act only has what comes to him naturally to base his actions on. In this way, he is trust worthy as all his actions are genuine. A person conditioned with a whole slew of “oughts” will act deceivingly. Even if their purpose for being deceiving is “good”, they are a less trust-worthy person in so far as they know how to play on social politics.

I, too, prefer the company of people who only act genuinely. At least then I will know almost immediately if I like this person or not. [/quote]

Lets go through this again.

  1. He was 16. He was just an Emo kid writing stuff down. Get over it.

  2. All kids need instruction on how to act.

  3. Just because someone who acts in a good and decent way is actually a bastard is not an argument against acting in a good and decent way.

  4. The Counts objections were far more an attack on George Washington than a repudiation of the rules of etiquette. I certainly found that objectionable and I’m not a Yank!
    [/quote]

  5. I don’t care. Who is putting forth these ideas and at what age don’t matter to me at all.

  6. That’s not self evident and the extent to which this is true, assuming it is, is highly debatable.

  7. I agree, good thing that’s not what I’m saying now, isn’t it? ^-^

  8. I don’t care about any of this Washington stuff. I agree with Count in so far as I think genuine behaviour is superior to behavioural conformity. Maybe I would agree with him on Washington’s character, maybe I wouldn’t, it’s simply not a topic I care to get into now. [/quote]

  9. It really should.

  10. Go read The Lord of the Flies.

  11. Thats a start.

  12. Fair enough.

I would however state that it is an old proverb that the meanest of Jackals will feast on the body of a great Lion. Try not to be a Jackal.

52

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Only a sheer, unadulterated, uneducated, shit-eating fool would have made the the stupid post that Count Breakfast Cereal made.[/quote]

I think he has a point. Someone who doesn’t know how he “should” act only has what comes to him naturally to base his actions on. In this way, he is trust worthy as all his actions are genuine. A person conditioned with a whole slew of “oughts” will act deceivingly. Even if their purpose for being deceiving is “good”, they are a less trust-worthy person in so far as they know how to play on social politics.

I, too, prefer the company of people who only act genuinely. At least then I will know almost immediately if I like this person or not. [/quote]

Lets go through this again.

  1. He was 16. He was just an Emo kid writing stuff down. Get over it.

  2. All kids need instruction on how to act.

  3. Just because someone who acts in a good and decent way is actually a bastard is not an argument against acting in a good and decent way.

  4. The Counts objections were far more an attack on George Washington than a repudiation of the rules of etiquette. I certainly found that objectionable and I’m not a Yank!
    [/quote]

  5. I don’t care. Who is putting forth these ideas and at what age don’t matter to me at all.

  6. That’s not self evident and the extent to which this is true, assuming it is, is highly debatable.

  7. I agree, good thing that’s not what I’m saying now, isn’t it? ^-^

  8. I don’t care about any of this Washington stuff. I agree with Count in so far as I think genuine behaviour is superior to behavioural conformity. Maybe I would agree with him on Washington’s character, maybe I wouldn’t, it’s simply not a topic I care to get into now. [/quote]

  9. Go read The Lord of the Flies.
    [/quote]

You’re backing your statement up with a novel? I know William Golding is a good writer and had some great ideas, but maybe a peer reviewed paper on the subject would be more suitable.

53

[quote]Waylander wrote:

857×652 268 KB

Yo Washington, I’m really happy for you and Imma let you finish, but Erwin Rommel was Britain’s most outstanding military opponent of all time.[/quote]
If he had taken Cairo and the Suez Canal then he’d have been a serious contendor. But Washington cost the English the North American continent. Can you imagine the effect on the Empire if the Revolution had failed?

54

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]Waylander wrote:

857×652 268 KB

Yo Washington, I’m really happy for you and Imma let you finish, but Erwin Rommel was Britain’s most outstanding military opponent of all time.[/quote]
If he had taken Cairo and the Suez Canal then he’d have been a serious contendor. But Washington cost the English the North American continent. Can you imagine the effect on the Empire if the Revolution had failed?[/quote]

I have little knowledge of the American Revolution, but I’m under the impression that Britain lost due to its ineptitude and grave errors being made, combined with French meddling.

Rommel was not able to take Egypt because Hitler did not like Rommel and didn’t give him enough troops, ammo or equipment. Yet Rommel was still a tactical genius and almost brought about our demise in WWII. British officers and historians have nothing but respect for Rommel, often citing him as the greatest general in WWII.

If we’re going about results and not personal ability however, then surely Clement Atlee was Britain’s greatest opponent as he gave away India and many other colonies, dismantling the British Empire.

With Washington, Britain lost the poor and small Thirteen Colonies, not the North American Continent. Britain still had Canada and could have annexed Western North America. So in terms of loss, Britain did not lose so much. But with Rommel, even though in the end we did not lose anything, Britain almost lost her entire Empire, and would have had Rommel been supported by his government. The fact that we pulled back and beat him does not mean he was any less of a threat.

I think Rommel’s personal ability, combined with potential loss trumps Washington.

Also Michael Collins should not even be a runner up in that competition. He fought with the British against Sinn Fein, and is hardly comparable to the likes of Rommel, Napoleon or Washington.

55

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
what does he say aboutbuying humans and forcing them to work from birth to death?

probably something like

“fuckin n*ggers” I bet

or about opium?

“take it to the face, bro!!!”

or trying to make himself king of america?

“yall mafacas bout to bow down n shit yo”

I will never trust a person that tres to be good all the time. They’re usually hiding some dark shit…

give me a man that lives as an animal any day, at least he’s honest and you know what to expect or how to deal with him…these sly and “do the right thing” fuckers will poison you slowly [/quote]

Yea. Washington sure was poisonous, walking away from potential absolute power after nearly singlehandedly winning the war that created a country that not only was to become the first true republic, but inspired a wave of revolutions, and whose creation reverberated across the ages.

Yep. Pure poison.

Sometimes you seem so intelligent and I start thinking you’re people, and then you go and drink from the toilet again.

[/quote]

Only a sheer, unadulterated, uneducated, shit-eating fool would have made the the stupid post that Count Breakfast Cereal made.[/quote]

I think he has a point. Someone who doesn’t know how he “should” act only has what comes to him naturally to base his actions on. In this way, he is trust worthy as all his actions are genuine. A person conditioned with a whole slew of “oughts” will act deceivingly. Even if their purpose for being deceiving is “good”, they are a less trust-worthy person in so far as they know how to play on social politics.

I, too, prefer the company of people who only act genuinely. At least then I will know almost immediately if I like this person or not. [/quote]

False dichotomy. Plus, you’re basically saying you’d rather hang out with a dude that shits on the floor than the guy that knows not to burp in an elevator because the former does what comes natural?

56

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

  1. Just because someone who acts in a good and decent way is actually a bastard is not an argument against acting in a good and decent way.
  2. The Counts objections were far more an attack on George Washington than a repudiation of the rules of etiquette. I certainly found that objectionable and I’m not a Yank!
    [/quote]

Yup.

57

So, I decided to pick up the book The Compleat Gentleman by Brad Miner, happened to walk by it at a local book store. Pretty good read so far, I’ve gotten through to the third chapter “The Gentleman,” pretty interesting especially the chapter on Knights. I’m most interested in reading “The Lover” chapter.

Anyway,

BC