PZ Myers. 2005 Dec 07. Like I said…thugs.. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/like_i_said_thugs/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Like I said…thugs.
Posted by PZ Myers on 12/07 at 07:09 PM
Godlessness • Politics • Rethuglicans • 3 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Godlessness • Politics • Rethuglicans • 3 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
- That doesn't even make grammatical sense...
-
well, at least there's a mailing address. I suggest we send him a copy of the constitution, with a post-it tab at the page containing the first amendment, and the relevant part highlighted.
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 07:24 PM
-
I'm afraid of lunatic atheists and their lawyers, too.
Thankfully, religious people seem more susceptible to lunacy than atheists.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 07:32 PM -
lamar billboard company. How much you want to bet they would refuse an anti-ID message as too controversial?
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 07:44 PM
- I can't help but notice that the billboard is owned by Lamar Advertising, which has just refused to honor their contract with the DNC to put up an ad critical of Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.
- Duh, if I'd followed the link, I'd have seen that's why the DNC was posting this image... I'm an idiot. ;)
-
So many Christians. So few lions.
#: Posted by Martin Wagner on 12/07 at 07:52 PM
-
Well, it is from WV, where even the deers can't do Jebus' birthday right:
http://tinyurl.com/bghva#: Posted by on 12/07 at 08:09 PM -
Ha, ha. Those silly Christian conservatives and their slipery slopes.
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 08:24 PM
-
PZ: You didn't just say "thugs"; you said "Fundamentalists: ignorant thugs with a bible", which is plausibly read as a blanket statement, much as someone who responded to news accounts of violence perpetrated by, say, certain African-Americans with the statement "African-Americans: ignorant thugs with dark skin" would plausibly be considered not just to be criticizing the specific criminals in question but to be making a broad racist statement. In the thread in which you made that statement, you made a few follow-up comments, none of which seemed to amend your original statement.
Estimates I've seen state that around 60 million Americans identify themselves as Fundamentalist Christians. In your many years of teaching, have you never had any of them as students? If you did have Fundamentalist students, how did they feel to have their teacher call them thugs?
BTW, what do you make of Professor Mirecki resigning his chairmanship today?#: Posted by on 12/07 at 08:41 PM -
Very funny. I love these knuckle draggers.
#: Posted by on 12/07 at 08:47 PM
-
In response to the deer story (from a WV resident), I find this statement particularly disturbing...
"The carcasses were given to passers-by for butchering."
Gives the image that there's a road-block set up, authorities stopping traffic, thrusting carcasses in the trunk saying "here, this is yours, deal with it."#: Posted by on 12/07 at 08:47 PM -
Nat, as far as I've ever seen, fundamentalist christians can be divided into only a few major groups: (1) troglodyte thugs, (2) those who train the troglodyte thugs, and (3) those who look the other way and make excuses for the troglodyte thugs.
All three groups really ought to be praying that the atheists are right. Because if the atheists are wrong, the fundamentalists are going to get an awful surprise when they find out just how hot their afterlife is...#: Posted by Wally Whateley on 12/07 at 08:49 PM -
Since no one on this story has provided links to Lamar's refusal to put up signs of people it does not like:
Refusal to to honor contracts for "Shame on Jean Schmidt" billboards
Other cases#: Posted by Michael Hopkins on 12/07 at 08:52 PM -
Actually, instead of the constitution, I would send the idiot this quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."#: Posted by on 12/07 at 09:13 PM -
For the record, Ron, I'm just south of there, and have eaten a deer smacked by my own car before ;). Amusing story all around, though.
Funny, back to the sign, how religious belief has no history, at all, of ever promoting civil war. Ever. And speaking of history, doesn't the word "fundamentalist" have a specific, historical meaning, eh?#: Posted by on 12/07 at 09:15 PM -
Jeez PZ, and you edit out my nice HK USP image?
Was it because I hotlinked, I sure am sorry.
I am tempted to put it up again, with a caption this time.
These people are animals PZ, can't you see? They really are terrible, terrible people. Beneath our contempt. Calling them animals is an insult to animals...
Anyone calling them troglodytes is insulting our closest cousin, pan troglodytes, without whom, we would not have nearly the medical knowledge we do, or the insight into our very earliest societies =)
We need to make up a new word to describe these bastards. One that fits their level of badness. something along the lines of "badong" ... but MORE intense!#: Posted by Federico Contreras on 12/07 at 09:20 PM -
Martin--
I seem to recall a French ancient historian saying, when asked about the Roman persecution of Christians, 'Too little, too late...' Though I fear no amount of persecution could ever cure people of self-righteous arrogance. Probably better to continue in the hope that most people will see through the stupidity and hypocrisy of this sign to the true authoritarian heart of Christianity-- the will to power.
Morning sun
How many more this morning are there dead of
The peace I came to bring a sword instead of?
H. Nemerov.#: Posted by Bryson Brown on 12/07 at 09:37 PM -
Nat
""Fundamentalists: ignorant thugs with a bible", which is plausibly read as a blanket statement"
Uh, so what?
"much as someone who responded to news accounts of violence perpetrated by, say, certain African-Americans with the statement "African-Americans: ignorant thugs with dark skin""
Not even close unless you're so racist that you believe that all black people have the same beliefs.
"Estimates I've seen state that around 60 million Americans identify themselves as Fundamentalist Christians."
Damn frightening, isn't it? 60 million people who think the Bible is literally true, 100% historical fact, and predicts the future.
"what do you make of Professor Mirecki resigning his chairmanship today?"
A pity. Mirecki thought that fundies were a blight on humankind and he could cite all sorts of evidence to support his belief.
He'll likely be replaced by a Christian who believes that anyone who worships another deity is going to spend all eternity in hell, and who has zilcho evidence to support that belief.
Seem fair to you, Nat?#: Posted by on 12/07 at 09:48 PM -
Just a few comments for Nate...
PZ: You didn't just say "thugs"; you said "Fundamentalists: ignorant thugs with a bible", which is plausibly read as a blanket statement, much as someone who responded to news accounts of violence perpetrated by, say, certain African-Americans with the statement "African-Americans: ignorant thugs with dark skin" would plausibly be considered not just to be criticizing the specific criminals in question but to be making a broad racist statement.
I didn t realize that Fundamentalism was a racial category. You always have the choice of adopting or renouncing fundamentalism. You aren t given such a choice by society if you want to be black, white or whatever.
Estimates I've seen state that around 60 million Americans identify themselves as Fundamentalist Christians. In your many years of teaching, have you never had any of them as students? If you did have Fundamentalist students, how did they feel to have their teacher call them thugs?
Well, if if you follow the likes of Pat Robertson and his ilk, and you don t speak up when they call for God s wrath to come down on those that they don t happen to like, then you, in my opinion, are a supporter of their odious opinions. Maybe you are not acting as a thug, but you are consenting to be represented publicly by a thug. As far as I m concerned, that makes you a thug.
BTW, what do you make of Professor Mirecki resigning his chairmanship today?
We would appreciate a link. If this is true, I suspect that this would be an understandable response to being attacked by a couple of - wait for it - fundie thugs.#: Posted by on 12/07 at 10:28 PM -
And now it's worse.
What is Christianity coming to? What is America coming to? Do I even want to know?
With this kind of message, knowing its a Christian reverend behind it, does this not ENFLAME anyone who isn't Christian? And for us Chrstians, does it not certainly make us want to say "WTF you can't do that?!"
And does this not just give other countries that aren't predominantly Christian one more reason to want to blow us up?!
This is the most un-Christian, anti-American billboard I have ever seen. Letting this billboard pass inspection is treason in and of itself for promoting non-constitutional values. Okay that's not "treason" but dammit it's something BAD!!#: Posted by on 12/08 at 12:11 AM - The sad thing is that since this fellah is a self-proclaimed "Reverand," he probably had his equally deluded "flock" pick-up the tab for the sign; nothing came out of his pocket.
-
Took a bit to throw together but have at it:
Anti-America, a reply. -
Why is the literal interpretation of the Bible being used to promote so much hate against non-Christians, gays, abortion clinic employees, etc? Is this an American thing? If so, why are so many Americans susceptible to this type of thinking? Does anyone have any suggestions for how we can get this hatred to stop?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:15 AM
-
Torris:
Breed more lions.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:32 AM -
Lamar is a fairly interesting company, check out this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20051203/pl_usnw/ohio_democrats_to_protest_lamar_advertising_s_rejection_of_dnc_jean_schmidt_billboards102_xml
You can bet they would refuse an anti-ID advertisement as well. - I don't understand the American fascination with branding people you disagree with as treasonous, anti-American, or unpatriotic.
-
I didn't realise God was American; I thought he was an Englishman.
I'm so disappointed. -
Alon: It's a shortcut.
It's used, primarily by individuals and organizations further towards the right wing, in order to try to marginalize anyone they disagree with.
If you can scare the average person into thinking a position is treasonous, you don't have to worry with any pesky details like why they should actually support YOUR position.
This isn't a purely American thing, although I think the last time it was really widespread elsewhere was in parts of Europe in the 1930s.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 07:22 AM -
GWW writes: "Not even close unless you're so racist that you believe that all black people have the same beliefs."
Why would sharing a common religious affiliation necessarily be more likely to cause a group to engage in thuggish violence (at a rate significantly above that for mankind as a whole) than sharing a common ethnicity? Do crime statistics show that Christian Fundamentalists engage in violent crime at a rate at or above the rate for African-Americans?#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:00 AM -
Bruce McNeely writes: "I didn t realize that Fundamentalism was a racial category. You always have the choice of adopting or renouncing fundamentalism. You aren t given such a choice by society if you want to be black, white or whatever."
I don't see how this is relevant to the question of whether using the violent activities of a few members of a class (be it religious or ethnic) to ascribe thuggishness to the entire class is rational.
"We would appreciate a link."
You are familiar with news.google.com, aren't you?#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:09 AM -
It's fairly easy to Google up statements by his political opponents accusing President Bush of being "anti-American" and a "traitor", and of fomenting "civil war" in the United States. Is such rhetoric as despicable as that which Briggs uses?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:22 AM
-
I think what the billboard is trying to say is that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are anti-American, anti-God, and will lead us into another civil war.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:27 AM
-
Alon, I don't think it's primarily an American activity; as Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." It's a feature (or bug) of many a nation.
Ha, it just occured to me that Isaac Asimov also said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, probably as a reference to Johnson's quote. Seems there are many incompetent scoundrels who don't bother dilly-dallying around with halfway houses and go straight to one of the two last refuges.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:29 AM -
Do crime statistics show that Christian Fundamentalists engage in violent crime at a rate at or above the rate for African-Americans?
No, that doesn't mean they aren't thuggish. Sure Fundies don't tend to engage in wonton violence and criminal behaviour but they DO so enjoy making use of intimidation tactics such as the billboard above, or your average spiel on the 700 Club, the hundreds of pointless boycotts engaged in by the AFA, or the super-popular "Left Behind" book series. It's the fundies constant reliance on intimidation and bully tactics that makes them thugs.
The fact that I see precious few fundies denouncing people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, etc. on a regular basis leads me to believe that the vast majority of fundies support the positions of these individuals. These individuals regularly engage in thuggish intimidation tactics in the media.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:31 AM -
Hmm, let's see - a group of whackadoo xtians threatening "lunatic atheists and their lawyers" with false accusations of treason in order to protect their delusions.
No, nothing thuggish about that at all. *lol* -
This isn't a purely American thing, although I think the last time it was really widespread elsewhere was in parts of Europe in the 1930s.
That's exactly what came to my mind. Well, in Israel you often see rightists say "it's okay for the media to be patriotic" as an excuse for their harassment of the media when it reports unsavory things about the intifada; but the extent of that is to my knowledge nothing near the extent of the patriotism wars in the US.
It's fairly easy to Google up statements by his political opponents accusing President Bush of being "anti-American" and a "traitor", and of fomenting "civil war" in the United States. Is such rhetoric as despicable as that which Briggs uses?
Yes. Tell me why what Bush does is bad; don't throw around rhetorical words such as treason and patriotism. -
"I don't see how this is relevant to the question of whether using the violent activities of a few members of a class (be it religious or ethnic) to ascribe thuggishness to the entire class is rational."
Because in this case, the thuggishness comes from a rabidly pro-authoritarian mindset that is explicitly praised as good in the founding document that is considered the ultimate authority by all members of that class.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:15 AM -
Ha, it just occured to me that Isaac Asimov also said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, probably as a reference to Johnson's quote. Seems there are many incompetent scoundrels who don't bother dilly-dallying around with halfway houses and go straight to one of the two last refuges.
I think it was James Ellroy who said that stupid people gravitate to crime because "it reduces their options to a comprehensible few".#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:41 AM -
That's a brilliant piece of logic. How about this one:
God is Love
Love is Blind
Stevie Wonder is Blind
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:52 AM -
Will, actually, that argument at least superficially works. (I'm not sure about the billboard.) It is a good exercise to learn "Bill Clinton's Logic Lesson" - that there are several meanings of "is".
#: Posted by Keith Douglas on 12/08 at 10:00 AM
-
Atheists, and the rest of the pro-reason bunch, should seek support from rich atheists to fund our own street signs
"Why be born again when you can just grow up?" -Bumber Sticker#: Posted by Mikko Sandt on 12/08 at 10:38 AM -
Considering Christian Evangelical Fundamentalism espouses the same morality, behavior and adherance to dogma that the Islamo Fundamentalist do, it is no surprise that this type of inflamatory rhetoric has spread across the US. Not only did Osama attack the US on 9/11, but he awoke the whore of fundamentalism in the US so that we can self destruct at the hands of our own religious zealots. It has been an effective strategem and I anticipate it will ultimately lead to the Islamist victory Osama seeks. The US will be a marginal and psychotic country with WMDs that our former allies will consider a grave threat once rationality and reason are completely abandoned. So, thank you fundamentalists for uniting against the heretics. It's extremely scary that the extremist ideology is now status quo and acceptible in this country. So, when will the suicide bombings begin?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 11:27 AM
-
I'm with Nat--generalizations suck...except that one.
How many of you who have this generalized vitriol against fundamentalist Christians have known and cared for some of them? My two college roommates, two of my best friends, were "fundies", as were their whole families. Really good people. Took this atheist materialist into their homes, broke bread and turkey with him. I can't say they're all thugs or come close to that sentiment.
And for those who will jump up and say, "Oh, but they all abet thuggery by their tacit approval or inaction," tell me what you do to stop the wrongs we see around us every day. Have you bought clothes lately? Did you see where it was manufactured, and by whose hands? We all fail ourselves, we all look the other way. We should strive to do better, but don't be so sure of your moral superiority while you're at it.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:13 PM -
I'm with Nat--generalizations suck...except this one.
How many of you who have this generalized vitriol against fundamentalist Christians have known and cared for some of them? My two college roommates, two of my best friends, were "fundies", as were their whole families. Really good people. Took this atheist materialist into their homes, broke bread and turkey with him. I can't say they're all thugs or come close to that sentiment.
And for those who will jump up and say, "Oh, but they all abet thuggery by their tacit approval or inaction," tell me what you do to stop the wrongs we see around us every day. Have you bought clothes lately? Did you see where it was manufactured, and by whose hands? We all fail ourselves, we all look the other way. We should strive to do better, but don't be so sure of your moral superiority while you're at it.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:22 PM -
The traditionally secular quality of American public life is what's kept us out of civil war--the sort you see elsewhere on this planet, where the Muslims rumble with the Hindus (or other Muslims), the Catholics with the Protestants, Jews duke it out with whoever, etc.
In that sense, secularity is like what economists call a commons; we all need it and use it--in this case, to maintain public civility--but it can be destroyed by jackasses like this Briggs.
These Bible bangers think that if they just keep imposing themselves--what? That we'll all accept whatever hateful, self-aggrandizing fairytale they're pushing?
But what is going to happen is the loss of a certain degree of public decorum.
I was raised, like most Americans, to think it rude to criticize other people's faiths--it's a private matter and none of my business. Apparently, these people never got that memo, because they have no problem with criticizing everyone else's beliefs.
Eventually, they're going to criticize the wrong atheist (or Jew, or Catholic, or pagan or--like many of us--someone who is the sole member of their particular religion) and get their clocks cleaned (as they themselves will cheerfully do to anyone who criticises their beliefs--after all, God would've wanted it).
This will escalate. Goodbye commons, hello civil war.#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:32 PM -
" but don't be so sure of your moral superiority while you're at it. "
Who here claimed to have moral superiority? Don't mistake this for us claiming to be better than them. THEY are the ones constantly claiming that there is no morality without religion. Yet, their behavior shows that there's none with religion either. -
Holy shit! That batty old bastard Briggs lives right down the road from me. I used to see his handywork whenever I went out to my favorite Thai restaurant in Morgantown, W. Va. They've taken that billboard down, but he may have others.
He is, surprisingly, Catholic, and also -- you knew this already -- a poet. You can find out more about him here and here.
I'm glad I'm moving back to New York. -
#52830: Nat — 12/08 at 08:22 AM
It's fairly easy to Google up statements by his political opponents accusing President Bush of being "anti-American" and a "traitor", and of fomenting "civil war" in the United States. Is such rhetoric as despicable as that which Briggs uses?
Uhhhhh, not quite the same thing, Nate boyo. See, one's a criticism of an individual for his actions, the other's a slander on a group for their beliefs.
For one thing, when I accuse Bush of anti-Americanism (and I do, and I probably will continue to do so as long as he remains in office), it's because of specific actions he (an individual) has taken to undermine the constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular.
When Briggs tars all atheists with the treason brush, it's because we don't subscribe to his particular belief system. Mind you, we don't want to interfere with his ability to adhere to his particular belief system - we just don't share it, and don't want to be forced to live by it ourselves. What is more American than this sort of "leave me alone" ethic?
By your "logic," nobody could be called anti-American, even if it could be demonstrated that he or she actually is, without being shouted down for being "despicable." So in anser to your original question, no. No it is not. -
By your "logic," nobody could be called anti-American, even if it could be demonstrated that he or she actually is, without being shouted down for being "despicable." So in anser to your original question, no. No it is not.
It's not quite correct. The people who call Bush anti-American don't care whether he's pro-American or anti-American by some general definition; they care about smearing him for his policies. I think that nobody should be called anti-American or treasonous or unpatriotic or whatever for rhetorical reasons. If you want to apply the labels descriptively, it's one thing; but so far I haven't seen anyone apply it descriptively to Bush. -
Alon,,
Then you are not looking.
It is far more than rhetoric, it is indeed descriptive.
See, for example, The Bush Betrayal, or any number of libertarian/right wing web sites.
hugs,
Shirley Knott#: Posted by on 12/08 at 05:16 PM -
Why would sharing a common religious affiliation necessarily be more likely to cause a group to engage in thuggish violence (at a rate significantly above that for mankind as a whole) than sharing a common ethnicity?
Another irony meter blown. Here's someone with, apparently, not a clue as to the etymology of "thug".
The Thugs were a well-organized confederacy of professional assassins, who travelled in various guises through India in gangs of 10 to 200, wormed themselves into the confidence of wayfarers of the wealthier class. When a favorable opportunity arose, the Thug strangled his victim by throwing a yellow scarf (symbolic of Kal Bhairab) around the neck, and then plundered and buried him. All this was done according to certain ancient and rigidly prescribed forms, and after the performance of special religious rites, in which the consecration of the pickaxe and the sacrifice of sugar formed a prominent part. Due to the fact that they used strangulation as the method of murder they were also frequently called "Phansigars", or "noose-operators."
The will of the goddess by whose command and in whose honor they followed their calling was revealed to them through a very complicated system of omens. In obedience to these, they often travelled hundreds of miles in company with, or in the wake of, their intended victims before a safe opportunity presented itself for executing their design. When the deed was done, rites were performed in the deity's honor, and a significant portion of the spoils was set apart for her.
They believed each murder prevented Kali's (their goddess's) arrival for 1000 years. The fraternity also possessed a jargon of their own (Ramasi), as well as certain signs by which its members recognized each other in the most remote parts of India. Even those who from age or infirmities could no longer take an active part in the ritual murder continued to aid the cause as watchers, spies, or dressers of food. Because of their thorough organization, the secrecy and security of their operation, and the religious pretext in which they shrouded their murders, they were recognized as a regular tax-paying profession and continued for centuries to practice their craft, free of inquiry from Hindu rulers.
(Wikipedia: Thuggee)
#: Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on 12/08 at 06:34 PM -
Dear Wesley:
I'm well aware of the etymology of the word "thug". Now, are you aware of the meaning of the word "necessarily"? I've never denied that certain religious groups have exhibited a propensity for physical violence. (Indeed, you may wish to supplement your newfound knowledge about Thugs by looking up the word "Assassin", as well.) My question that you quote was raised in response to GWW's rejection of the Christian-Fundamentalist/African-American analogy on the basis that the former share a common belief. That persons with certain beliefs engage disproportionately in violence would only invalidate the analogy if there weren't also ethnic groups that engage disproportionately in violence. But, of course, there are. (And, tellingly, no one has managed to come forward with those statistics showing that the violent crime rate by Christian Fundamentalists matches or exceeds the corresponding rate by African-Americans).#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:37 PM -
I don't known exactly why anyone should expect less coming from a member of a creed that actively calls out for those who's very lives are lived, lurking in the shadows, the lowly and ignorant. This guy, Rev. Biggs is no suprise, neither is the motive behind his madness. The message this sign is sending is not meant for the likes me or you, his flock or even his friends, you see its of a higher calling. He has ambitions for and beyond this world, and is just trying to get his God's attention, in the hope he may attain some power from it. Its a tried and true method employed by those who desire power, and unfortunately for America, there seems no shortage nor way of stopping this sort of scum from getting it. I would not be suprised that in the future, when these religious leaders such as Rev. Biggs, after becoming completely entrenched and wielding the power they have gotten, won't attempt to throw American against American into actual warfare. I hope not.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:27 PM
-
When contacted about this sign, Kevin Riley () of Lamar Inc responded:
pls attack the speaker not the messenger.
thks for your note . I personally find the sign offensive, but pls note
the attribution, it is readable from the road This is what we asked of
the DNC. our medium is available for all political speech as long as
the speaker is willing to identify him or herself. I am curious, who told
you that the DNC was turned down? I would ask you to read what is
pasted below and let me know what you would have done.
our initial conversation with the DNC was very clumsy, we are not
without fault but now it is not about politics or censorship it is about
attribution. We are requesting a disclaimer that can be read from the
road." Paid for by the DNC". My inbox is full of the type of uncivil
discourse that Rep Schmidt engaged in on the House floor. We are a deeply
divided nation.#: Posted by on 12/09 at 01:04 AM -
fundamentalist christians ... ought to be praying that the atheists are right
[ emphasis mine ]
In what universe does that make sense?!#: Posted by on 12/09 at 04:13 AM -
According to the DNC article Lamar accepted the artwork then a day or so later refused to honor the contract.
Someone's lying.
And does Lamar Advertizing really think any believes that they think the ad is offensive? IF they did, they wouldn't have taken the money for it. Just like the didn't take money from the DNC. -
Nat,
We have well-documented cases of religious affiliation leading to patterns of violent behavior. As you point out, both the terms "thug" and "assassin" have entered our language precisely because this is the case.
As for "necessarily", if you want to make an issue out of how you were misrepresenting PZ's statement, I certainly won't stop you. "Necessarily" was no part of what you were responding to.#: Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on 12/09 at 12:50 PM -
I've got to admit, Wesley, that you're great at covering your bases. First, you claim that the answer to my question is laughably easy. Then, when I point out that your answer is actually an answer to a question different from the one I asked, you claim that my question is unfairly hard. I apologize if my lack of clarity was responsible for you wasting your time doing historical research in Wikipedia under the apparent assumption that I was one of the few people alive in 1984 who didn't see Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 02:31 PM