Rocketman on August 13, 2007, 11:34:21 pm
I'm not sure that I understand the "Mary Sue" comment.  Is that like "Miss goody two shoes"? Also are you talking about Susan or Libby?  Libby I think would qualify but Susan wouldn't in my opinion.  :P

aditantimedh on August 14, 2007, 12:03:01 am
If Libby's a Mary Sue, she's a very unhappy one.

And who writes miserable Mary Sues?


Markku Tuovinen on August 14, 2007, 06:02:26 am
Page 70/139: "illegally committing nuclear disarmament"... that's a bit of an empty letter, since the nuclear armament was committed illegally in the first place: the governments of USA, Soviet Union, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan (and North Korea) didn't ask anyone, even their own citizens, whether they want to give these governments the power to thoroughly destroy the civilization. And even if the people in the 1940's gave their assent, they had no right to lock all future generations under the shadow of the bomb.

Self-defense is a natural right; mutual assured destruction is a crime against really, really many people. Righting this particular wrong cannot be illegal.

aditantimedh on August 14, 2007, 02:07:56 pm
It's illegal in the eyes of the parties who initiated it in the first place.  The term was chosen for its double layers of irony.



Rocketman on August 14, 2007, 06:07:47 pm
Your right Markku as far as it goes.  There's what should be and there's what really is.  One thing that really ticks me off is that the United States right now is arming with small arms and even some big ones the country of Lebanon which just prior had been considered a "terrorist" country.  Paid for with your and mine American tax dollars.  Appearently they are no longer considered to be a threat, but just try to talk our elected leaders into giving or even selling those same full auto weapons without severe restrictions to law abiding tax paying american citizens who only want to shoot them.   >:(