I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;)

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;)

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ Show Spelled
[sey-krid] Show IPA
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or
divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour
sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of
right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to the
constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual.  4-7 easily apply to her
use of the word.  Give me a break. 


Mike F. 

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ Show Spelled
[sey-krid] Show IPA
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or
divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour
sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of
right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to the
constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual.  4-7 easily apply to her
use of the word.  Give me a break. 


Mike F.  I think Mike is supporting Sarah's use of 'sacred' in the well known secular
sense.

Tune in next time to on *Words' True Functions* (WTF) when Bill Clinton
explains the definition of what 'is' is. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> sa·cred   
> /ˈseɪkrɪd/ *Show
> Spelled*[*sey*-krid]
> *Show IPA*
> *–adjective *
> 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose;
> consecrated.
> 2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with
> divinity or divine things; holy.
> 3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular
> or profane ): *sacred
> music; sacred books. *
> 4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: *a morning
> hour sacred to study. *
> 5. regarded with reverence: *the sacred memory of a dead hero. *
> 6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense
> of right: *sacred oaths; sacred rights. *
> 7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or
> office.
>
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to
> the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily apply
> to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ Show Spelled
[sey-krid] Show IPA
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or
divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour
sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of
right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to the
constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual.  4-7 easily apply to her
use of the word.  Give me a break. 


Mike F.  I think Mike is supporting Sarah's use of 'sacred' in the well known secular
sense.

Tune in next time to on *Words' True Functions* (WTF) when Bill Clinton
explains the definition of what 'is' is. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> sa·cred   
> /ˈseɪkrɪd/ *Show
> Spelled*[*sey*-krid]
> *Show IPA*
> *–adjective *
> 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose;
> consecrated.
> 2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with
> divinity or divine things; holy.
> 3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular
> or profane ): *sacred
> music; sacred books. *
> 4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: *a morning
> hour sacred to study. *
> 5. regarded with reverence: *the sacred memory of a dead hero. *
> 6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense
> of right: *sacred oaths; sacred rights. *
> 7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or
> office.
>
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to
> the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily apply
> to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> I'm not supporting her use of anything.  I'm saying that people who are
criticizing her for it are..........


 



________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ Show Spelled
[sey-krid] Show IPA
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or
divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour
sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of
right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to the
constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual.  4-7 easily apply to her
use of the word.  Give me a break. 


Mike F.  I think Mike is supporting Sarah's use of 'sacred' in the well known secular
sense.

Tune in next time to on *Words' True Functions* (WTF) when Bill Clinton
explains the definition of what 'is' is. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> sa·cred   
> /ˈseɪkrɪd/ *Show
> Spelled*[*sey*-krid]
> *Show IPA*
> *–adjective *
> 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose;
> consecrated.
> 2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with
> divinity or divine things; holy.
> 3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular
> or profane ): *sacred
> music; sacred books. *
> 4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: *a morning
> hour sacred to study. *
> 5. regarded with reverence: *the sacred memory of a dead hero. *
> 6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense
> of right: *sacred oaths; sacred rights. *
> 7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or
> office.
>
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to
> the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily apply
> to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> I'm not supporting her use of anything.  I'm saying that people who are
criticizing her for it are..........


 



________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. Because it evidences a disconnect from reality. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ Show Spelled
[sey-krid] Show IPA
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or
divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour
sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of
right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to the
constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual.  4-7 easily apply to her
use of the word.  Give me a break. 


Mike F.  I think Mike is supporting Sarah's use of 'sacred' in the well known secular
sense.

Tune in next time to on *Words' True Functions* (WTF) when Bill Clinton
explains the definition of what 'is' is. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> sa·cred   
> /ˈseɪkrɪd/ *Show
> Spelled*[*sey*-krid]
> *Show IPA*
> *–adjective *
> 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose;
> consecrated.
> 2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with
> divinity or divine things; holy.
> 3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular
> or profane ): *sacred
> music; sacred books. *
> 4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: *a morning
> hour sacred to study. *
> 5. regarded with reverence: *the sacred memory of a dead hero. *
> 6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense
> of right: *sacred oaths; sacred rights. *
> 7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or
> office.
>
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to
> the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily apply
> to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> I'm not supporting her use of anything.  I'm saying that people who are
criticizing her for it are..........


 



________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. Because it evidences a disconnect from reality. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. >
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring
> to the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily
> apply to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>

My astonishment isn't because the word cannot, in any sense, be applied. My
astonishment is that any reasonably responsible individual would choose to
enshroud a government document with language that is literally applicable to
religious texts. That's bonkers.

And I'll thank you not to speak to my motivations. I don't "have it in" for
Palin. I'm befuddled by her popularity, and put off by her "aw, shucks"
persona, but she's every bit as entitled to weigh in as anyone else.

--
-pcg

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ Show Spelled
[sey-krid] Show IPA
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or
divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour
sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of
right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to the
constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual.  4-7 easily apply to her
use of the word.  Give me a break. 


Mike F.  I think Mike is supporting Sarah's use of 'sacred' in the well known secular
sense.

Tune in next time to on *Words' True Functions* (WTF) when Bill Clinton
explains the definition of what 'is' is. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> sa·cred   
> /ˈseɪkrɪd/ *Show
> Spelled*[*sey*-krid]
> *Show IPA*
> *–adjective *
> 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose;
> consecrated.
> 2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with
> divinity or divine things; holy.
> 3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular
> or profane ): *sacred
> music; sacred books. *
> 4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: *a morning
> hour sacred to study. *
> 5. regarded with reverence: *the sacred memory of a dead hero. *
> 6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense
> of right: *sacred oaths; sacred rights. *
> 7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or
> office.
>
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to
> the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily apply
> to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> I'm not supporting her use of anything.  I'm saying that people who are
criticizing her for it are..........


 



________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. Because it evidences a disconnect from reality. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. >
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring
> to the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily
> apply to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>

My astonishment isn't because the word cannot, in any sense, be applied. My
astonishment is that any reasonably responsible individual would choose to
enshroud a government document with language that is literally applicable to
religious texts. That's bonkers.

And I'll thank you not to speak to my motivations. I don't "have it in" for
Palin. I'm befuddled by her popularity, and put off by her "aw, shucks"
persona, but she's every bit as entitled to weigh in as anyone else.

--
-pcg On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:49 PM, pcg <> wrote:

> My astonishment isn't because the word cannot, in any sense, be applied.
> My astonishment is that any reasonably responsible individual would choose
> to enshroud a government document with language that is literally applicable
> to religious texts. That's bonkers.
>

It's bonkers for Palin to use definition #4 of the word when people could
misinterpret her as using definition #1? Usually people adapt to the given
context, applying to most probably definition. I think that should apply
here.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of
Christian *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of
"blood libel" (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who
have tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in
context, I guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.  You may not like
it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most americans
understand when it is used. 


And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document. You may not
> like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.
>
> And the blood libel complaint is a cannard.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/12/dershowitz-gives-palin-the-go-ahead-on-blood-libel.aspx
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
> *Sent:* Wed, January 12, 2011 2:46:49 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] oh please.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but
> good grief. The Constitution a "sacred" document? (What kind of Christian
> *is* she?) And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel"
> (a term that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?
>
> I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
> tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
> guess she's rather restrained about it all. But still ...
>
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/
>
> -- dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> > The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.

Wtf? By who?

>You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
> common phrase and one that most
> americans understand when it is used.

It's not a question of whether anyone likes it, or whether it's
common, or even whether anyone understands what she means by it, it's
creepy. (Though perfectly in keeping with the scary brand of
religio-patriotism that seems to be growing in this country.)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:
>

He means "canard", i.e. the French word for "duck".

As it happens, there is no "canard" here, even by the English definition
of "a false or unfounded report or story". Palin really *did* say the
words "blood libel", and the words really *are* historically associated
with medieval European anti-Semitism (you might recall that the phrase
came up a lot when pundits discussed Mel Gibson's Passion).

It may or may not be the case that the term has a broader meaning now and
is therefore more acceptable in everyday political usage, but that is a
difference of opinion, not one of fact, and can therefore not be easily
labelled "false or unfounded" in the sense that the word means.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
> wrote:

> The constitution is regulary referred to a sacred document.
>>
>
> By Americans of a certain stripe, sure.


Well, there is this use of the word:

"regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group,
or individual"

Not necessarily religious. I think most people know what sacred means, you are really reaching. 

And I'll take Dershowitz take on blood libel over yours.

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. It is a canard that it is loaded rhetoric or that it makes things worse. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. WTF right back at you.

Mike F.




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> WTF right back at you.
>

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up
on this list. ;) > WTF right back at you.

Sorry, didn't mean to be too emphatically baffled. I do find this
assertion astounding, though. What on earth would possess anyone in
2011 to refer to a governmental document as something "sacred?" Has
history taught us nothing?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) Yea, I kept my posts at facebook.

From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On Behalf
Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:37 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Mike Findlay <> wrote:
WTF right back at you.

I was thinking it was taking a long time for the topic of the day to blow up on
this list. ;) > I am honestly surprised at your shock.

Why?

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ Show Spelled
[sey-krid] Show IPA
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or
divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour
sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of
right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.

7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to the
constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual.  4-7 easily apply to her
use of the word.  Give me a break. 


Mike F.  I think Mike is supporting Sarah's use of 'sacred' in the well known secular
sense.

Tune in next time to on *Words' True Functions* (WTF) when Bill Clinton
explains the definition of what 'is' is. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Mike Findlay <>wrote:

> sa·cred   
> /ˈseɪkrɪd/ *Show
> Spelled*[*sey*-krid]
> *Show IPA*
> *–adjective *
> 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose;
> consecrated.
> 2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with
> divinity or divine things; holy.
> 3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular
> or profane ): *sacred
> music; sacred books. *
> 4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: *a morning
> hour sacred to study. *
> 5. regarded with reverence: *the sacred memory of a dead hero. *
> 6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense
> of right: *sacred oaths; sacred rights. *
> 7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or
> office.
>
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring to
> the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily apply
> to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> I'm not supporting her use of anything.  I'm saying that people who are
criticizing her for it are..........


 



________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. Because it evidences a disconnect from reality. 

Mike F. 




________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. >
> Only someone who has it in for Palin would be focusing on her referring
> to the constitution as a sacred document as if it is unusual. 4-7 easily
> apply to her use of the word. Give me a break.
>

My astonishment isn't because the word cannot, in any sense, be applied. My
astonishment is that any reasonably responsible individual would choose to
enshroud a government document with language that is literally applicable to
religious texts. That's bonkers.

And I'll thank you not to speak to my motivations. I don't "have it in" for
Palin. I'm befuddled by her popularity, and put off by her "aw, shucks"
persona, but she's every bit as entitled to weigh in as anyone else.

--
-pcg On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:49 PM, pcg <> wrote:

> My astonishment isn't because the word cannot, in any sense, be applied.
> My astonishment is that any reasonably responsible individual would choose
> to enshroud a government document with language that is literally applicable
> to religious texts. That's bonkers.
>

It's bonkers for Palin to use definition #4 of the word when people could
misinterpret her as using definition #1? Usually people adapt to the given
context, applying to most probably definition. I think that should apply
here. > It's bonkers for Palin to use definition #4 of the word when people could
> misinterpret her as using definition #1?

When there's a possibility that the misinterpretation could be
dangerous? Yes, I think that's bonkers. The national political climate
has become heightened to the point of being surreal, with violent
language and imagery permeating even the most mundane discussions. The
divide between left and right is increasingly defined by those who are
"stealing America" and those whose guns will have to be pried from
their cold dead fingers. People with this level of ideological fervor
aren't famous for their ability to parse language, nor for their
discernment of philosophical boundaries.

Right now, I feel it is extremely important that we do not blur the
lines between political and spiritual ideologies. I'm not saying that
Palin did anything diabolical or malevolent, just lazy and dangerous.

> Usually people adapt to the given
> context, applying to most probably
> definition. I think that should apply
> here.

Context is entirely dependent on who is reading/hearing the comment.
If a comedian walks out of the House of Representatives and jovially
says to the security officers at the door, "I just murdered everyone
in there," how far do you think he would get? ;)

--
-pcg
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)