<rss version="0.91"><channel>
<title>How to get on my bad side</title>
<link>http://63.247.131.180/~lilith33/journal/archives/000924.php</link>
<description>You know, I really hate it when someone thinks they can twist my words around and use them to attack me. It makes me go all kinds of crazy. I was just going to reply to the stupid fucker in the comments section of <a href="http://www.jaycaruso.com/archives/001613.html#001613">Jane's post</a>, but the thrill has gone out of using other peoples' server space to rant and rave. So here is my reply to one <a href="http://antidotal.blogspot.com/">Eric</a>, who has taken the position that he has the right to make a moral judgment on me.

The subject was the decision of <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030203-13680812.htm">UN officials to cover up the Picasso painting "Guernica"</a> that hangs in the UN building. Here is my reply in full to Jane's remark that it must have something to do with the current "Iraq-obsessed atmosphere":<blockquote>Well, it was the UN that covered up the painting, not the US. I don't know that the "Iraq-obsession" had anything to do with it, unless it was the obsession certain member nations have to not remind anyone that Iraq has waged a whole lot more of the Guernica-style war on its own people than the United States has.</blockquote>Well, along came Eric on his moral high horse.

He proceeded in his hectoring entries to accuse me of 1) lacking in "historical/artistic knowledge" (note: I am a Humanities major, and the daughter of a history teacher, not that he could be expected to know that); 2) of "not understanding" the meaning of Picasso's painting -- he then went on to make the astonishing claim that Picasso in his work was objecting to the "means" of war (i.e., dropping bombs from planes on people) and not the "ends"! I do actually believe that Picasso was objecting to both means <i>and</i> ends. Google is a wonderful thing: <a href="http://www.picassoswar.com/">here</a> is a website devoted to the matter. He also misunderstood what I meant by "Guernica-style attacks": he apparently thought I meant actual strafing and bombing, and was actually trying to compare Iraqi and US ordinance by numbers (which would have been ridiculous since I knew full well we overwhelmed in that area), when I actually meant "callous attacks on defenseless communities for experimental and/or training purposes," which was the reason the Germans attacked Guernica, and which is one of Saddam Hussein's favorite practices. I attempted to explain where Eric had misunderstood me, but he was having none of it, and I was accused of "ridiculous brutality," and of using the "straw man" argument. That is when I decided Mr. Moral Cop could go fuck himself. Here is my statement to him (warning -- lots of shouting and more swearing ahead):</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<item>
<title>texas holdem</title>
<link>http://www.texas-va-loan.com/texas-holdem.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[Please check the sites in the field of <A HREF="http://www.texas-va-loan.com/texas-holdem.html">texas holdem</A> ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>online poker</title>
<link>http://www.jmhic.com/online-poker.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[In your free time, check some relevant pages dedicated to <A HREF="http://www.jmhic.com/empire-poker.html">empire poker</A> ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>poker rooms</title>
<link>http://www.razordude.com/poker-rooms.html</link>
<description><![CDATA[In your free time, check out some information about <A HREF="http://www.razordude.com/online-poker.html">online poker</A> ]]></description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>