The Worlds Longest Thread!

[zigar]

And if the devilish negative antipoint giver would care to reveal himself...

...that would be fun.

i feels for ya wc...in the last 2 days i've been neg'd for...

"for saying lamer alert...."

in this post

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAMER ALERT!
some1 gave me a negative antipoint for posting a msg written backwards in this thread!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ya think that's bad...someone neg'd me for my post in this thread about an out of date security faq at w3.org...which is in fact security related...

now the funny thing...with this one ...if ya notice that lamer alert is in a quote...i didn't even say it...zion1459 did...hehe

posting the lindows article link...they may be incompetent...

" aint got nothing better to do then copy **** all day?"

seems posting links to security and related articles is frowned upon by some here...maybe i should stop and just start anonymously giving neg points to everyone...start flame wars...and post things like ...ne1 noz ware i getz serialz...

course then again...i did get some pos points for posting with thanks from people who actually contribute to this place...and they signed too...no big surprise there...

ah well...shall i stop posting relevant security links...nah...i do have more important things to do (check my sig...hehe) but i have this compulsion...ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v,ctrl-c, ctrl-v

off to go find some more links to copy and paste ....

[zigar]

it had to happen and we're all just thrilled...

ctrl-c, ctrl-v

"OXFORD, England -- A rich and colourful language that has developed over many centuries and which is now spoken by half the planet has a new word -- Doh!

The famous catchphrase of cartoon character Homer Simpson has made it into the updated online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, published on Thursday.

It means "Doh" is now an official word of the English language, along with about 250 new entries. "


can wooohooo be far behind...



http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...x.html?related

[KorpDeath]

Man oh man do I love gated. NOT!!

the gated consortium www. gated.org

the site is down.......must be routing problem!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

[[WebCarnage]]

Originally posted by zigar
i feels for ya wc...in the last 2 days i've been neg'd for..."for saying lamer alert...." in this post...

...now the funny thing...with this one ...if ya notice that lamer alert is in a quote...i didn't even say it...zion1459 did...hehe

Hah!...once again, I laugh at the ignorant enemy...

"aint got nothing better to do then copy **** all day?"

seems posting links to security and related articles is frowned upon by some here...maybe i should stop and just start anonymously giving neg points to everyone...start flame wars...and post things like ...ne1 noz ware i getz serialz...

Very true, but thats what makes your posts (er...links) so interesting. There not 'cracker' related (as in tools or teachings). Which is a good thing. Maybe most people here just don't understand the meaning of knowledge. Does it matter where it comes from, as long as it's on topic? Some people beleive so - damn segregationists. Always wanting ones to create their own tutorial, but whats the use - when there are 30 billion others out there (ok ok ok...maybe not to that extent, but you see where I'm giong with this). I never knew wasting time was part of a 'hacker profile' - although I do, indubitably, love Ms.Mittens' tutorials on her various topics (Yay MsMittens!).

course then again...i did get some pos points for posting with thanks from people who actually contribute to this place...and they signed too...no big surprise there...

Heh...to bad there's no 'check' for the names...although I wouldn't want to vote "yes" if I were to vote on bringing it in...yet sophistical people will always live...and post for that matter.

ah well...shall i stop posting relevant security links...nah...i do have more important things to do (check my sig...hehe)

off to go find some more links to copy and paste ....

Well...ya win some, ya lose some. Doesn't really matter. I would actually recommend you do post "relevant security links." <SARCASM> And I love your signiture by the way - funny as hell</SARCASM>

Although I like Vorlin's (old?) one better. I can't remember the exact wording, and last time I checked it had changed (or maybe not...there are a few people in here with the same avatar and I keep mistaking them for you...even though *I know you write much better* then some of the post's I've read... Anyways, it had something to do with being an IT Professional and buying video games...I just find that a fascinating revelation...*harps start playing in the bg* ...

[Ennis]

Aristotle’s Political Theory
Aristotle (b. 384 - d. 322 BC), was a Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist. Along with his teacher Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient thinkers in a number of philosophical fields, including political theory. Aristotle was born in Stagira in northern Greece, and his father was a court physician to the king of Macedon. As a young man he studied in Plato’s Academy in Athens. After Plato’s death he left Athens to conduct philosophical and biological research in Asia Minor and Lesbos, and he was then invited by King Philip II of Macedon to tutor his young son, Alexander the Great. Soon after Alexander succeeded his father, consolidated the conquest of the Greek city-states, and launched the invasion of the Persian Empire. Aristotle returned as a resident alien to Athens, and was close friend of Antipater the Macedonian viceroy. At this time (335-323 BC) he wrote or at least completed some of his major treatises, including the Politics. When Alexander died suddenly, Aristotle had to flee from Athens because of his Macedonian connections, and he died soon after. Aristotle’s life seems to have influenced his political thought in various ways: his interest in biology seems to be expressed in the naturalism of his politics; his interest in comparative politics and his sympathies for democracy as well as monarchy may have been encouraged by his travels and experience of diverse political systems; he criticizes harshly, while borrowing extensively, from Plato’s Republic, Statesman, and Laws; and his own Politics is intended to guide rulers and statesmen, reflecting the high political circles in which he moved.

1. Political Science in General
The modern word ‘political’ derives from the Greek politikos, ‘of, or pertaining to, the polis’. (The Greek term polis will be translated here as ‘city-state’. It is also translated as ‘city’ or ‘polis’, or simply anglicized as ‘polis’. City-states like Athens and Sparta were relatively small and cohesive units, in which political, religious, and cultural concerns were intertwined. The extent of their similarity to modern nation-states is controversial.) Aristotle’s word for ‘politics’ is politikê, which is short for politikê epistêmê or ‘political science’. It belongs to one of the three main branches of science, which Aristotle distinguishes by their ends or objects. Contemplative science (including physics and metaphysics) is concerned with truth or knowledge for its own sake; practical science with good action; and productive science with making useful or beautiful objects (Top. VI.6.145a14-16, Met. VI.1.1025b24, XI.7.1064a16-19, EN VI.2.1139a26-8). Politics is a practical science, since it is concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens (although it resembles a productive science in that it seeks to create, preserve, and reform political systems.) Aristotle thus understands politics as a normative or prescriptive discipline rather than as a purely empirical or descriptive inquiry.
In Nicomachean Ethics I.2 Aristotle characterizes politics as the most authoritative science. It prescribes which sciences are to be studied in the city-state, and the other capacities -- such as military science, household management, and rhetoric -- fall under its authority. Since it governs the other practical sciences, their ends serve as means to its end, which is nothing less than the human good. "Even if the end is the same for an individual and for a city-state, that of the city-state seems at any rate greater and more complete to attain and preserve. For although it is worthy to attain it for only an individual, it is nobler and more divine to do so for a nation or city-state." (EN I.2.1094b7-10) Aristotle’s political science encompasses the two fields which modern philosophers distinguish as ethics and political philosophy. (See the entry Aristotle, ethics.) Political philosophy in the narrow sense is roughly speaking the subject of his treatise called the Politics. For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:

Supplement: Characteristics and Problems of Aristotle’s Politics
2. Aristotle’s View of Politics
Political science studies the tasks of the politician or statesman (politikos), in much the way that medical science concerns the work of the physician (see Politics IV.1). The most important task for the politician is, in the role of lawgiver (nomothetês), to frame the appropriate constitution for the city-state. This involves enduring laws, customs, and institutions (including a system of moral education) for the citizens. Once the constitution is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate measures to maintain it, to introduce reforms when he finds them necessary, and to prevent developments which might subvert the political system. This is the province of legislative science, which Aristotle regards as more important than politics as exercised in everyday political activity such as the passing of decrees (see EN VI.8).
Aristotle frequently compares the politician to a craftsman. The analogy is imprecise because politics is, in the strict sense, a form of practical wisdom or prudence, but valid to the extent that the politician produces a legal system according to universal principles (EN VI.8 and X.9). In order to appreciate this analogy it is helpful to observe that Aristotle explains production of an artifact in terms of four causes: the material, formal, efficient, and final causes (Phys. II.3 and Met. Ä.2). For example, clay (material cause) is molded into a vase shape (formal cause) by a potter (efficient or moving cause) so that it can contain liquid (final cause). (For discussion of the four causes see the entry on Aristotle, physics.)

One can also explain the existence of the city-state in terms of the four causes. It is a kind of community (koinônia), that is, a collection of parts having something in common (Pol. II.1.1261a18, III.1.1275b20). Hence, it is made up of parts, which Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts: as households, or economic classes (e.g., the rich and the poor), or demes (i.e., local political units). But, ultimately, the city-state is composed of individual citizens (see III.1.1274a38-41), who, along with natural resources, are the "material" or "equipment" out of which the city-state is fashioned (see VII.14.1325b38-41).

The formal cause of the city-state is its constitution (politeia). Aristotle defines the constitution as "a certain ordering of the inhabitants of the city-state" (III.1.1274b32-41). He also speaks of the constitution of a community as "the form of the compound" and argues that whether the community is the same over time depends on whether it has the same constitution (III.3.1276b1-11). The constitution is not a written document, but an immanent organizing principle, analogous to the soul of an organism. Hence, the constitution is also "the way of life" of the citizens (IV.11.1295a40-b1, VII.8.1328b1-2).

The existence of the city-state also requires an efficient cause, namely, its ruler. On Aristotle’s view, a community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or authority. This ruling principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8-10; cf. IV.1.1289a15-18). However, on a deeper level, there must be an efficient cause to explain why a city-state acquires its constitution in the first place. Aristotle states that "the person who first established [the city-state] is the cause of very great benefits" (I.2.1253a30-1). This person was evidently the lawgiver (nomothetês), someone like Solon of Athens or Lycurgus of Sparta, who founded the constitution. Aristotle compares the lawgiver, or the politician more generally, to a craftsman (dêmiourgos) like a weaver or shipbuilder, who fashions material into a finished product (II.12.1273b32-3, VII.4.1325b40-1365a5).

The notion of final cause dominates Aristotle’s Politics from the opening lines:

Since we see that every city-state is a sort of community and that every community is established for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake of what they believe to be good), it is clear that every community aims at some good, and the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims highest, that is, at the good with the most authority. This is what is called the city-state or political community. [I.1.1252a1-7]
Soon after, he states that the city-state comes into being for the sake of life but exists for the sake of the good life (2.1252b29-30). The theme that the good life or happiness is the proper end of the city-state recurs throughout the Politics (III.6.1278b17-24, 9.1280b39; VII.2.1325a7-10).
To sum up, the city-state is a hylomorphic (i.e., matter-form) compound of a particular population in a given territory (material cause) and a constitution (formal cause). The constitution itself is fashioned by the lawgiver and is governed by politicians, who are like craftsmen (efficient cause), and the constitution defines the aim of the city-state (final cause, IV.1.1289a17-18). For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:

Supplement: Presuppositions of Aristotle’s Politics
It is in these terms that Aristotle understands the fundamental normative problem of politics: What constitutional form should the lawgiver and politician establish and preserve in what material for the sake of what end?
3. General Theory of Constitutions and Citizenship
Aristotle states that "the politician and lawgiver is wholly occupied with the city-state, and the constitution is a certain way of organizing those who inhabit the city-state" (III.1.1274b36-8). His general theory of constitutions is set forth in Politics III. He begins with a definition of the citizen (politês), since the city-state is by nature a collective entity, a multitude of citizens. Citizens are distinguished from other inhabitants, such as resident aliens and slaves, and even children and seniors are not unqualified citizens. After further analysis he defines the citizen as a person who has the right (exousia) to participate in deliberative or judicial office (1275b18-21). In Athens, for example, citizens had the right to attend the assembly, the council, and other bodies, or to sit on juries. The Athenian system differed from a modern representative democracy in that the citizens were more directly involved in governing. Although full citizenship tended to be restricted in the Greek city-states (with women, slaves, foreigners, and some others excluded), the citizens were more deeply enfranchised than in modern representative democracies because they were more directly involved in governing. This is reflected in Aristotle’s definition of the citizen (without qualification). Further, he defines the city-state (in the unqualified sense) as a multitude of such citizens which is adequate for a self-sufficient life (1278b20-1).
Aristotle defines the constitution as a way of organizing the offices of the city-state, particularly the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8-10; cf. IV.1.1289a15-18). The constitution thus defines the governing body, which takes different forms: for example, in a democracy it is the people, and in an oligarchy it is a select few (the wealthy or well born). Before attempting to distinguish and evaluate various constitutions Aristotle considers two questions. First, why does a city-state come into being? He recalls the thesis, defended in Politics I.2, that human beings are by nature political animals, who naturally want to live together. For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:

Supplement: Political Naturalism
He then adds that "the common advantage also brings them together insofar as they each attain the noble life. This is above all the end for all both in common and separately." (III.6.1278b19-24) Second, what are the different forms of rule by which one individual or group can rule over another? Aristotle distinguishes several types. He first considers despotic rule, which is exemplified in the master-slave relationship. Aristotle thinks that this form of rule is justified in the case of natural slaves who (he asserts without evidence) lack a deliberative faculty and thus need a natural master to direct them (I.13.1260a12; slavery is defended at length in Politics I.4-8). Although a natural slave allegedly benefits from having a master, despotic rule is still primarily for the sake of the master and only incidentally for the slave (III.6.1278b32-7). (Aristotle provides no argument for this: if some persons are congenitally incapable of self-governance, why should they not be ruled primarily for their own sakes?) He next considers paternal and marital rule, which he also views as defensible: "the male is by nature more capable of leadership than the female, unless he is constituted in some way contrary to nature, and the elder and perfect [is by nature more capable of leadership] than the younger and imperfect." (I.12.1259a39-b4) Aristotle is persuasive when he argues that children need adult supervision because their rationality is "imperfect" (ateles) or immature. But he also alleges (without substantiation) that, although women have a deliberative faculty, it is "without authority" (akuron), so that females require male leadership (I.13.1260a13-14). (Aristotle’s arguments about slaves and women appear so weak that some commentators take them to be ironic. However, what is obvious to a modern reader need not have been so to an ancient Greek philosopher.) It is noteworthy, however, that paternal and marital rule are properly practiced for the sake of the ruled (for the sake of the child and of the wife respectively), just as arts like medicine or gymnastics are practiced for the sake of the patient (III.6.1278b37-1279a1). In this respect they resemble political rule, which involves equal and similar citizens taking turns in ruling for one another’s advantage (1279a8-13). This sets the stage for the fundamental claim of Aristotle’s constitutional theory: "constitutions which aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons" (1279a17-21).
The distinction between correct and deviant constitutions is combined with the observation that the government may consist of one person, a few, or a multitude. Hence, there are six possible constitutional forms (Politics I.7):


Correct Deviant
One Ruler Kingship
Tyranny

Few Rulers Aristocracy
Oligarchy

Many Rulers Polity
Democracy


This six-fold classification (which is adapted from Plato’s Statesman) sets the stage for Aristotle’s inquiry into the best constitution, although it is modified in various ways throughout the Politics. For example, he observes that the dominant class in oligarchy (literally rule of the oligoi, i.e., few) is typically the wealthy, whereas in democracy (literally rule of the dêmos, i.e., people) it is the poor, so that these economic classes should be included in the definition of these forms (see Politics III.8, IV.4, and VI.2 for alternative accounts). Also, polity is later characterized as a kind of "mixed" constitution typified by rule of the "middle" group of citizens, a moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor (Politics IV.11).

Aristotle turns to arguments for and against the different constitutions, which he views as different applications of the principle of distributive justice (III.9.1280a7-22). Everyone agrees, he says, that justice involves treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are deemed to be equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own analysis of distributive justice set forth in Nicomachean Ethics V.3: Justice requires that benefits be distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs mistakenly think that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free birth should also have equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle’s view, because they assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state. The city-state is neither a business association to maximize wealth (as the oligarchs suppose) nor an agency to promote liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain). Instead, Aristotle argues, "the good life is the end of the city-state," that is, a life consisting of noble actions (1280b39-1281a4). Hence, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political rights to those who make a full contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom (1281a4-8). This is what Aristotle understands by an "aristocratic" constitution: literally, the rule of the aristoi, i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the implications of this argument in the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law and the rule of a supremely virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case of aristocracy. Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal constitution in which the citizens are fully virtuous.

4. Study of Specific Constitutions
The purpose of political science is to guide "the good lawgiver and the true politician" (IV.1.1288b27). Like any complete science or craft, it must study a range of issues concerning its subject matter. For example, gymnastics (physical training) studies what sort of training is advantageous for what sort of body, what sort of training is best or adapted to the body that is naturally the best, what sort of training is best for most bodies, and what capacity is appropriate for someone who does not want the condition or knowledge appropriate for athletic contests. Political science studies a comparable range of constitutions (1288b21-35): first, the constitution which is best without qualification, i.e., "most according to our prayers with no external impediment"; second, the constitution that is best under the circumstances "for it is probably impossible for many persons to attain the best constitution"; third, the constitution which serves the aim a given city-state population happens to have, [that is best] based on a hypothesis: "for [the political scientist] ought to be able to study a given constitution, both how it might originally come to be, and, when it has come to be, in what manner it might be preserved for the longest time; I mean, for example, if a particular city happens neither to be governed by the best constitution, nor to be equipped even with necessary things, nor to be the [best] possible under existing circumstances, but to be a baser sort."
Hence, Aristotelian political science is not confined to the ideal system, but also investigates the second-best constitution, the one which is the best that most city-states are capable of supporting. For it is the closest approximation to full political justice which the lawgiver can attain under the circumstances. Although Aristotle’s political views were influenced by his teacher Plato, he is very critical of the ideal city-state set forth in Plato’s Republic on the grounds that it overvalues political unity, it embraces a system of communism that is impractical and inimical to human nature, and it neglects the happiness of the individual citizens (Politics II.1-5). In contrast, in Aristotle’s own "best constitution" (described in Politics VII-VIII) each and every citizen will possess moral virtue and the equipment to carry it out in practice, and thereby attain a life of excellence and complete happiness (see VII.13.1332a32-8). All of the citizens will hold political office and possess private property because "one should call the city-state happy not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens." (VII.9.1329a22-3). Moreover, there will be a common system of education for all the citizens, because they share the same end (Pol. VIII.1). But if (as is the case with most city-states) the population lacks the capacities and resources for complete happiness, the lawgiver must be content with fashioning a suitable constitution (Politics IV.11). The second-best system typically takes the form of a polity (in which citizens possess an inferior, more common grade of virtue) or mixed constitution (combining features of democracy, oligarchy, and aristocracy, so that no group of citizens is in a position to abuse its rights).

In addition, the political scientist must understand existing constitutions even when they are bad. Aristotle adds that "to reform a constitution is no less a task [of politics] than it is to establish one from the beginning," and in this way "the politician should also help existing constitutions." (IV.1.1289a1-7) The political scientist should also be cognizant of forces of political change which can undermine an existing regime. Aristotle criticizes his predecessors for excessive utopianism and neglect of the practical duties of a political theorist. However, he is no Machiavellian. The best constitution still serves as a regulative ideal by which to evaluate existing systems.

These topics occupy the remainder of the Politics. Books IV-VI are concerned with the existing constitutions: that is, the three deviant constitutions, as well as polity or the mixed constitution, the best attainable (IV.2.1289a26-38). The whole of book V investigates political change and revolution. Books VII-VIII are devoted to the ideal constitution. As might be expected, Aristotle’s attempt to carry out this program involves many difficulties, and scholars disagree about how the two series of books (IV-VI and VII-VIII) are related to each other: for example, which were written first, which were intended to be read first, and whether they are ultimately consistent with each other. For a further discussion of this topic, see the following supplementary document:

Supplement: Characteristics and Problems of Aristotle’s Politics
Aristotle’s Politics did not have an immediate impact because it defended the Greek city-state, which was already becoming obsolete in his own lifetime. For similar reasons much of his discussion of particular political institutions is not directly applicable to modern nation-states (apart from his objectionable defenses of slavery, female subservience, and disenfranchisement of the working classes). Even so, Aristotle’s Politics has had a deep influence on political philosophy until the present day, because it contains deep and thought-provoking discussions of perennial concerns of political philosophy: the role of human nature in politics, the relation of the individual to the state, the place of morality in politics, the theory of political justice, the rule of law, the analysis and evaluation of constitutions, the relevance of ideals to practical politics, the causes and cures of political change and revolution, and the importance of a morally educated citizenry.
Bibliography
Translations
Ernest Barker, rev. by Richard Stalley (Oxford, 1995).
Benjamin Jowett, rev. Jonathan Barnes (in The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 2, Princeton, 1984).
Carnes Lord (Chicago, 1984).
C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis, 1998).
Peter L. P. Simpson (Chapel Hill, 1996).
T. A. Sinclair, rev. Trevor J. Saunders (Harmondsworth, 1983).
The Clarendon Aristotle Series (Oxford University Press) will include translation and commentary of the Politics in four volumes:
Trevor J. Saunders, Politics I-II (1995).
Richard Robinson with a supplementary essay by David Keyt, Politics III-IV (1995).
David Keyt, Politics V-VI (forthcoming).
Richard Kraut, Politics VII-VIII (1997).
Scholarly literature
Jonathan Barnes et al., eds., Articles on Aristotle, vol. 2, Ethics and Politics (London, 1977).
Richard Bodéüs, The Political Dimensions of Aristotle’s Ethics (Albany, 1993).
David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, Jr., eds., A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics (Oxford, 1991).
Carnes Lord and David O’Connor, eds., Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science (Berkeley, 1991).
Fred D. Miller, Jr., Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics (Oxford, 1995).
Richard G. Mulgan, Aristotle’s Political Theory (Oxford, 1977).
W. L. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1887-1902).
Mary Nichols, Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle’s Politics (Savage, Md., 1992).
Günther Patzig, ed., Aristoteles’ Politik (Göttingen, 1990).
Stephen G. Salkever, Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Political Philosophy (Princeton, 1990).
Judith A. Swanson, The Public and the Private in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy (Ithaca, 1991).
Bernard Yack, The Problems of a Political Animal: Community, Justice, and Conflict in Aristotelian Political Thought (Berkeley, 1993).
Other Internet Resources
[Please contact the author with suggestions.]
Related Entries
Aristotle: biology | Aristotle: ethics | Aristotle: physics


Copyright © 1998 by
Fred D. Miller, Jr.

[SecurityAdmin]

Well if we can get the longest thread or the longest flame if we could post defacements here instead of Attrition.org.

[KorpDeath]

In French, unlike English, all nouns are either masculine or
feminine. For fun, a teacher once divided her French class into
two groups, with men in one group and women in the other, and
asked each group to decide whether the French word for computer should be masculine ("le computer"), or feminine ("la computer").

The men's group decided that computers should definitely be of
the feminine gender ("la computer"), because:
1). No one but their creator understands their internal logic.
2). The native language they use to communicate with other
computers is incomprehensible to everyone else.
3). Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for
possible later retrieve and review.
4). As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself
spending half your pay check on accessories for it.

The women's group, however, concluded that computers should be
masculine ("le computer"), because:
1). In order to get their attention, you have to turn them on.
2). They have a lot of data but they are still clueless.
3). They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the
time they ARE the problem.
4). As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you'd
waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.


Hmmmmm......

[T1T3SONET]

I have nothing important to add....just wanted to be a part of the "World's Longest Thread".


There. Now I feel happy.

[KorpDeath]

An American soldier, serving in World War II, had just returned
from several weeks of intense action on the German front lines.
He had finally been granted R&R and was on a train bound for
London. The train was very crowded, so the soldier walked the
length of the train, looking for an empty seat.

The only unoccupied seat was directly adjacent to a well-dressed
middle-aged lady and was being used by her little dog. The war
weary soldier asked, "Please, ma'am, may I sit in that seat?"

The English woman looked down her nose at the soldier, sniffed
and said, "You Americans. You are such a rude class of people.
Can't you see my little Fifi is using that seat?"

The soldier walked away, determined to find a place to rest, but
after another trip down to the end of the train, found himself
again facing the woman with the dog.

Again he asked, "Please, lady. May I sit there? I'm very
tired."

The English woman wrinkled her nose and snorted, "You Americans!
Not only are you rude, you are also arrogant. Imagine!"

The soldier didn't say anything else; he leaned over, picked up
the little dog, tossed it out the window of the train and sat
down in the empty seat.

The woman shrieked and railed, and demanded that someone defend
her and chastise the soldier.

An English gentleman sitting across the aisle spoke up, "You
know, sir, you Americans do seem to have a penchant for doing the
wrong thing. You eat holding the fork in the wrong hand. You
drive your autos on the wrong side of the road. And now, sir,
you've thrown the wrong bitch out the window."

[nabylbt]

french is such a weird language .... you never know wihch it is feminin or masculin.... sometimes there are some rules most of the time they are none....
sex related nouns are mostly M when using the formal form of french but then in slang it turns out to be the reverse... they become F could it be that it is another messed up way of increasing the level of insult.... that not only flaming your genital and also treating them as to be of the wrong sex .... those froggye warm mediterraneen !!!
but then what about the nouns that are neither M or F or even better are both... can it be that a word is by ? apparently so wihtou any doubts!!! so forget learning about formal french just put everything in F and curse at everyone... the best way to get some respect this days .... or even better pick the right person to help you pronouce the right way any words and get some french kissing personal tutoring for free ....
that was the best part ...