----- Original Message -----
From: Bear Barbarian
To:
knot4prophet@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:24 PM
Thought I'd make you chuckle.
19:13:16 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> Former chief economist and senior VP for the world bank
Joseph Stiglitz resigned in shock when he read IMF internal documents. Stiglitz learned
that the IMF will forgive a country's debt, but only if that country's leaders agree to
allow the IMF blow out that country's economy, starve people to death if required and
allow installation of an IMF puppet government.
19:13:37 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> ain't that a trip
19:13:57 <Munted_Haggis_Hedly_In_Love462> heh those fuckers should be on trial at the
hague
19:14:06 <BEAR> Where did you get that from, Zard
19:14:07 <Munted_Haggis_Hedly_In_Love462> with nooses waiting
19:14:15 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> I think Stiglitz won a Nobel too
19:14:21 <BEAR> Where did you get that from, Zard
19:14:36 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> probably from The August Review
19:14:43 <BEAR> Probably?
19:14:52 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> uh huh
19:14:58 <BEAR> Ok.
19:15:43 <BEAR> Zard, what's you r highest level of education?
19:16:34 <Munted_Haggis_Hedly_In_Love462>Ididn't even finish year 12.
19:16:38 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> I have a Bachelors and quite a few Graduate credits
19:16:42 <hirundo165> His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly
developed moral bankruptcy. Woody Allen
19:16:54 <hirundo165>
19:16:54 <Munted_Haggis_Hedly_In_Love462> butIwouldn't say im stupid
19:16:59 <BEAR> What do you have a Bachelors in>?
19:17:04 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> Art
19:17:19 <BEAR> Did you ever have to write any papers for you r courses
19:17:24 <Munted_Haggis_Hedly_In_Love462> <- has a diploma in network engineering
19:17:29 <Munted_Haggis_Hedly_In_Love462> :S
19:17:48 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> Of course
19:17:50 <hirundo165> <highly-qualified in the blindingly obvious
19:17:59 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> My last English class was level 800
19:18:10 <BEAR> Did the prof. ever let you cite a source as "probably" from them?
19:19:18 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> Bear, the site I got that info from DID site its sources.
I do NOT cite my sources for paragraphs that I copy/paste into chatrooms because that
would be retarded
19:19:31 <hirundo165> a definite frood yup
19:19:34 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420>
19:19:41 <BEAR> citing sources in chatrooms = retarded
19:19:42 <BEAR> gotcha
19:20:16 <BEAR> I won't ask for anything you cite to be sourced again.
19:20:27 <BEAR> But then I won't trust a damn word you say, not thatIdid before
hand.
19:20:37 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> Yes. Going through a "trial" in order to debate with
people is foolish
19:20:54 <BEAR> Right.
19:21:07 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> meaning, you and Knot, of course
19:21:11 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420>
19:21:15 <Munted_Haggis_Hedly_In_Love462> Control the media you control discourse you
control the people. Continuous reinforcement.
19:21:21 <BEAR> Having a factual stance supported with citations = retarded
19:21:22 <BEAR> I know
19:21:24 <BEAR> you said that
19:21:36 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> no, you just restated
19:21:50 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> This is what I meant by a trial
19:21:50 <BEAR> I said it differently.
19:21:50 <BEAR> I said it differently.
19:22:13 <BEAR> Look I'm not blaming you . I don't really debate with you anyway
19:22:32 <BEAR> But when we do debate and I cite my sources and you don't I'm sure
we'll see who's retarded.
Later on he cited his source : )
19:23:48 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420>
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/glob ... 007080373/
19:24:23 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420> august review cites their sources immaculately
19:24:24 <ZaRdOz(<O>..<o>)420>
19:24:36 <BEAR> Zard, don't be retarded. Only a retard cites their sources in a chat room.
Lmfao!! Well done, Barrett. Further to this, I read the article he "cited" and Joseph Stiglitz isn't mentioned even ONCE.
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/glob ... 007080373/
Check for yourself if you like. He says that the august review cites their sources "immaculately" - another fucking joke. This site reads like a fucking tabloid - that article listed would never meet Wikipedia's criteria for bias or citation. The writer of that article uses a subtle yet discernible tabloid journalism which pervades every conclusion made by him.
Notice how the writer quotes Brezinski at length, but if you read the quotes themselves, they aren't damning in any way - only the writer's interpretation and elaboration of what Brezinski said could be considered damning in any way.
So what if people from multiple nations serve on a commission? So what if many of them have been in top level governmentt positions? So what if the Brezinski views the nation-state, and indeed sovereignity as a 'fiction' - so do I! lol
So what if the world is moving towards one world government? So what if there is one national North American currency? How is any of this intrinsically "bad" Zardo? You fucking idiot. The world has been moving towards that, naturally.
If there was one world government, and they used an american style bill of rights and constitution, how is that 'evil' Zardo? lol. Who's to say that the NWO that these people envision isn't about human equality, justice and living standards?
"The fourth and final stage was Brzezinski's Technetronic Era, or the ideal of rational humanism on a global scale - the result of American-Communist evolutionary transformations."
The ideal of rational humanism as the final stage is what the author is summarazing about Brezinski. Humanism is bad?
"Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Sounds fucking nasty, eh? Lol.
So, thanx for the laugh, Barrett. Zard is a fucking buffoon. I like how he invoked me as someone who asks people to cite their sources, too. I never even bother. If people do not cite sources, I immediately assume they are editorializing and of very little value. I always cite sources when I'm arguing, whether it be dictionaries, encyclopedias, historical documents, etc.
Now, about Zard's sensational, erroneous claim. Stiglitz was the Chief Economist of the World Bank for almost 4 years, when he resigned, one month before his term was to expire. But, he stayed on as a private consultant to then President of the World Bank - James Wolfensohn. After Stiglitz wrote another scathing attack on the IMF's procedures, the consultant post was eliminated.
Now, how could a person that wiki quotes (and cites) as "the most cited economist in the world, as of June 2008", a person who is anti-globalism, anti-free markets - ever have made it to the upper echelon of the World Bank in the first place, if this is one of the primary institutions in league with the Trilateral Commission? He was appointed to this position after the World Bank approached him. Why would the World Bank pursue and maintain as their Chief Economist a person who is obviously against their interests? They didn't read his resume? Haha.
Further to this, it seems Stiglitz' disgust with the World Bank and IMF procedures doesn't extend to Trilateral Commission members such as Rockefeller:
"In July 2000 Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), with support of the Ford, Rockefeller, McArthur, and Mott Foundations and the Canadian and Swedish government, to enhance democratic processes for decision making in developing countries, to ensure that a broader range of alternatives are on the table and more stakeholders are at the table."
"Making Globalization Work is an optimistic book, offering the hope that global society has the will or the ability to address global problems and that international economic integration will ultimately prove a force for good. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Stiglitz
From this latter quote about Stiglitz' book (2006) titled Making Globalization Work, it plainly shows that Stiglizt isn't ANTI-globalist, regardless. He's all for globalism, insofar as using the economic power of the world, to help the whole world. The only thing he decries are the policies being implemented ostensibly to effect that change.
Stiglitz didn't leave the World Bank because, after 4 years as Chief economist, he had just realized how they worked by reading an internal IMF document - their policies are no secret, especially to the Chief Economist of the World fucking Bank. He left because he could not impose his influence effectively against those policies.
Bachelor of fucking Arts, lol. That and a dollar will get you a coffee, Zardo. Zard is one of the most poignant people on WinMx chiefly because of his blatant, unmitigated hypocrisy. He cries about the fucking NWO and human rights, on a macrocosmic level, but cannot translate such moral principles to the microcosm level of his own shitty chat room.
How can someone have one set of values that they pretend to when discussing people in the world, (intangible) in general, but use a totally different, opposite in fact, set of values when dealing with people in a chat room, or any social gathering of people (tangible)? They can't.
The only way someone could apply different sets of contrasting values, such as these, to people is because they don't even hold the values to which they claim. This is Zardoz. Not only a buffoon, but a pretender. It's easy to pretend you have lofty morality when discussing worldly human rights. It's not so easy to extend that morality to the concrete, actual humanity when you don't really espouse those morals to begin with.
Zard just parrots anything that comes out of the anti-establishment tabloid journalism. He acts like it really pisses him off, too. What a fucking joke. He's worried about how the starving nations in Africa can defend themselves against the nasty World Bank and IMF. He's worried about human rights. He's worried about GWB taking away his rights. Yet at the same time, he repeatedly has removed the rights of people in the Heresy chatroom (not, I stress, his creation - the room was merely handed to him a few years ago, to host. Yes, Zard, the Heresy room is bigger than you.)
Chatrooms are small potatoes, you say? I disagree. It's a social gathering, a meeting of minds. He's banned numerous people from that room in his little fits of power over the past few months, including but not limited to Demented Muppet, Barrett, Sprinkles, Chardok and me (all members of this site). In most of the cases, he bans not because of our behaviour, which is mirrored and even pales by comparison to behaviour of people such as 9's, who abuses most of the room.
Recently, BandwidthBinger confronted Zard in Heresy over his differential treatment of people, re: banning, when considering that Zard has never banned 9's for his consistent bullshit.
What did Zard answer to Bing about 9's destructive behaviour? "I don't see it."
LMFAO!!!
This is not just an understatement, it's an outright lie. Zard is a pretender and a liar, as well as a buffoon. Stick that in your bong and smoke it, you "dickhead."
A recent argument Zardoz had with Chardok (which also ended in Chardok being banned) is related to this post (re: citations), so I'll discuss it, too.
Chardok came in Heresy and came into a difference of opinion with Zardoz as to the legality of the war in Iraq and other wars in which the USA has been involved. Chardok was uncharacteristically tame, and countered only Zard's points, asking him to cite references (as Barrett did).
The first ad hominem stone was cast by Zard (I have the logs) saying to Chardok "are you nuts?" Chardok was the epitome of patience with Zard that day though, and didn't bother to descend to Zard's depth's until Zard had insulted him numerous times and still Zard wouldn't back up his claims, which is all Chardok was asking.
The moment that Chardok committed the same crime that Zard himself did, Zardoz bans him.
You fucking hypocrite.
Why are people like Jimztheman, Kardio, GringoBR, fuqrot etc removing their own @dmin in that room, or forsaking the room altogether? It's because of the policies restricting people's right to speak which are applied inconsistently. 9's can sit there and call Lacey a "fucking whore" all day, and Zard won't do a damned thing, he "doesn't see it" somehow. Yet Chardok responds in kind to Zard's ad hominem bullshit and gets banned instantly.
Now Gringo and Kardio and others may not personally hold Zardoz responsible for the condition of the room, yet nonetheless they are dissatisfied to the point of making a statement about the power structure that exists in the room, a power structure of which they no longer want any part.
I hold Zardoz personally responsible for the condition of the room. He's the one who lets 9's call people homos, pedos and sluts all fucking day long, but bans Chardok when Chard responds with venom to being called "nuts" after asking for sources from Zard. If CosmicJo is to blame, in some people's eyes, for banning people like Sprinkles, I still shift all the blame to Zardoz, who allows it to happen, and is ultimately, in control of who gets to say what, in Heresy.
So thank-you Barrett, for giving me this opportunity to expound upon Zardoz' abject behaviour during my vacation from WinMx.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
