I want to improve my English...

[El_Jibaro]

Originally posted by Eddier1

Stan, Suki is quite correct in what she said about me and erotic stuff. I have long time now been freed from the "tyranny of sex", and before she knew lots about me, she asked if changing her way of expressing herself would help the mentoring on communism that we were into. I told her emphatically not to change her way of being at all, but to be comfortable in expressing herself as she saw fit. And we got on fairly well in our long discussions going all the way back to the beginnings of philosophy up to the present philosophers. Afterall, it wasn't too difficult because all of philosophy, including dialectical materialism has been a footnote to Plato, the Greek, and first Academician in his Academy down the road from the Agora. However, you seem to be much younger than me, and see lots of erotic energy flowing from Suki to you, and if not me, to other men in this forum. That is something you got to explain to her, and if you retract it, then what value do you opine you would have in anything else that you say. I know, I know, never expect the truth from anybody regarding sex. But if you know that too, why point out the eroticism you said you perceived? You know very well that Suki is a Hindu, and eroticism has been a major part of that religion for many centuries (it is a very old religion, probably dating back to the 11th century B.C.. It is older than Buddhism and Confuciousism, and certainly older than Judaism and Judeo-Christianity and, of course, Islam. But take note, that Suki disavows the erotic side of Hinduism, and has said so on this forum. I suppose, however, as a cultural anthropologist she has read the Kama Sutra, and other erotic literature of the Far East, but then that is part of her job, isn't it? I only had optimism when I knew she was a working anthropologist, and was looking forward for that moment of epiphany, when she would have a sudden perception of the truth of communism. But it was not to be. And she opines that she had something like that with Erich Fromm's socialism based on matriarchical centrism. I don't think so... There is nothing motherly about real socialism, the epiphany makes any commie who has had it fight and die for the core values of scientific socialism. It made the commies of Leningrad withstand the siege of all the might of the Werhmact and Luftwaffe for almost 300 days. The commies starved, but kept on fighting as long as they could, until the Germans had to give up and move their armed forces towards Stalingrad, and they failed there, too!The day when the counter attack by our commie soldiers began there was a line of cannon almost 15 miles long. And when they all fired in unison, the foundations of the world shook!, and they kept on firing at will, while the infantry attacked the German forces dashing over hill and dale into the Wermacht until the German forces had to sound the retreat, and it continued all the way back to the bunkers of Berlin, where we commies were the first to enter and win the war. There was everything with the strength of the Man in this, and the woman, some who were soldiers too, participated, but the matriarchical element remained in a fortress of protection; how then can Suki with her revisionist Marxism, ala Eric Fromm from the safety of academia, say that her socialism gave her an epiphany? And that her socialism is the true socialism, sans the patriarchical? No way, Suki!; I ask you to rethink your life and thought, and give it the good sober second thought in tranquillity. Our differences are basically interfactional ones based on these issues of scientific socialism in contradistinction to revisionist socialism. At present, that is all there is to it!

Hacia la Victoria Siempre Boricuas, Juntos Venceremos!
Soy Puertorriqueno y Punto; e Realista Social.
EddieR

But the laughter I get from seeing the geriatric Marxist Ed talking to his minions on silly pettiness and peavishness is worthy of a COMEDY BOOK .

I thought I had seen it all...

[El_Cid]

Grandioso flujo, el "I want to improve my english". Si lo hubiera sabido, le hubiera puesto un nombre un poco más belicoso, y más elegante.

Siento mi desaparición, pero se ha debido a exigencias de la agenda. No he tenido tiempo para seguir desenmascarando al camarada Eddier y los crímenes de sus amiguetes cuando vinieron de paseo por aquí por España. Por cierto: acaba de salir un libro del joven historiador español César Vidal Manzanares titulado "Checas de Madrid". Las checas, para el que no lo sepa, fueron el equivalente a los campos de exterminio nazis en el campo republicano. Financiadas, por supuesto, con dinero público. A ver si lo ves por allá por la isla, aunque lo dudo, y le echas un vistazo y nos cuentas un resumen, compi.

Loable la labor de Stan instruyendo magistralmente a los foristas en los procelosos caminos del idioma español: Dios te lo pague.

Completo sus enseñanzas al Ecuajey este con un par de apuntes:

"Escribiste exactamente lo que yo creía escribirías"

La mejor manera de expresar esto es, como dijo el señor Stan, "escribiste lo que esperaba", o bien "has escrito lo que esperaba", si la contestación es lo suficientemente reciente. El "escribirías" ese ahí no tiene ningún sentido. "Escribirías" es un condicional simple, y como su nombre indica, denota conceptos que serían cumplidos si el antecedente se cumple (ojo a la explicación que va con ejemplo y todo incluído, , el serían es condicional). Es decir, el condicional suele ir con frases que tienen un "si ...." en sentido de hipótesis:

"Si fueses a casa, te acompañaría"

"Si tuviese boli lo escribiría"

La frase que pusiste no corresponde a este estructura de hipótesis-consecuencia. No pinta nada ahí un condicional.

Y sino, sin embargo (o sinembargo, se puede escribir de los dos modos) y pero son distintos.

El sinembargo suele ir seguido de una coma y aislado. Creo que es equivalente a vuestro nevertheless:

"Había comido abundantemente. Sinembargo, tenía hambre"

El pero se utilizaría así:

"Había comido, pero tenía hambre."

Estos dos primeros como se ve sirven para expresar lo mismo pero de distinto modo.

El sino no se puede sustituir por el pero, aunque creo que en inglés sino y pero son ambos but, y será por lo que viene la confusión. Ejemplo de sino:

"No había comido hamburguesa, sino pollo".

La diferencia es clara: el pero establece algo que se realiza al igual que la primera parte (tan cierto es que tenía hambre como que había comido), pero que no es lo lógico y esperable. El sino digamos "corrije" una aseveración falsa anterior (no había comido hamburguesa. En vez de eso, había comido pollo).

Otros ejemplos:

"No se compró tres camisetas sino cuatro".

"Compró camisetas, pero no se las cobraron".

"Compró camisetas. Sin embargo, no se las cobraron."

Bueno, que escribía sólo para despedirme porque me voy de vacaciones a un sitio donde no tengo internet y he metido un rollo de traca. Que os vaya bien el verano a todos, a Stan, a Yautia, a Suki, y claro está al rojete.

¡VIVA ESPAÑA! ¡VIVA EL REY!



Y Eddier, no sé que coño decías de que seguía latiendo un subconsciente de imposición en España al "nacionalizar" a la fuerza a los brigadistas. Que ese gesto fue una vergüenza lo digo yo, pero no te inventes las cosas porque no son así. El gobierno dio la posibilidad de acceder a la nacionalidad española a los brigadistas que así lo desearan. No se impuso nada. Sólo se hizo el ridículo de un modo espantoso, además de una burla a media España. Nada más. Pero no veas gigantes donde sólo hay molinos.

Si tú no la pediste, te has quedao sin ella. Lo sientoooooo. Tampoco tiene que ver nada con un intento de aumentar la natalidad como dijo Stan, aunque si que es cierto que el tema está un poco mal. Pero como tengamos que confiar en aumentar la natalidad de la Patria con Eddier y sus amiguetes brigadistas.... ¡¡¡VAMOS APAÑAOS!!!. Jajajajaja

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadiós.

[Eddier1]

¡¡¡VAMOS APAÑAOS!!!. Jajajajaja

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadiós. [/b][/quote]

Estas muy dispuesto a criticar, dizque eres un criticon de primera hacia tu propio gobierno Espanol. Que rayos quieres decir con "apanaos"?; es una palabra que inicialmente me dio rasgos de bebes en panos. Es esto lo que tu opines de tus lideres gobermentales en Espana? Si o no!, "no!", entonces adelante con tus explicaciones para aclarar tus jactancias!

Saludos,
EddieR

[Eddier1]

Folks, I have given the last word on el_jibaro in another post. But now I direct it squarely at him and his post. And that word indicates without peradventure of a doubt what he is: THE MAITREYA! Folks beware of him, because according to the true standards of Christianity, that MAITREYA IS THE HOUND OF HELL TRYING TO MAKE HIMSELF GOD! And remember this, because it is my last word on him. I explain this to you folks, but to him no explanation is due, because he is unjust in the extreme, and to those with no malice like us folks, we do not have to explain anything or answer any questions from such an UNJUST MAITREYA.

Hacia la Victoria Siempre Boricuas, Juntos Venceremos!
Soy Puertorriqueno y Punto; e Realista Social.
EddieR

[Suki]

Originally posted by Stanley
Suki:

I am glad you were so emphatic about your non-erotic interest in Ed. Now I will not wonder anymore about what kind of energy you are sending his way. You must forgive me but it seems that sometimes I see the sex angle when there is none. My wife says that this is a trait of all Scorpios like me. My wife is very much like you------- a virgin at marriage with no baggage. It certainly works quite well.

It sounds like Papotito was quite the lady's man in his prime. How many girlfriends did he have before he met you?

____________________________________________________

Suki:Stanley, when I think back on my noviazgo with my husband. I was soooo young. I was 18 when I got married. And he treated me with such extraordinary delicacy. He was 5 years older 23. I knew him since I was 16 years old. And he was 21. And I thought him OLD at the time. Lol. A mutual acquaintance thought he would make a good match with my sister. But, my sister is very different in all ways than me. And so, no match there ever. But she thought him a nice guy and invited him to a family picnic. I had no interest in the opposite sex at that age. I truly did not. I just wanted to read and dance and swim and be with my friends. He was so smooth, in the way he would just strike up conversation and walk with me everywhere and just 'show up' unexpectedly where I was or was going to. I was so terribly naive I never thought how strange a coincidence it all was. Lol. Now, I realize he was being a pretendiente. Lol. He says for him he got hit by a lightning bolt and that was it. Game over. Me, I fell in love with that man little by little. I got to see how he thought, how he was. And his treatment of me was impeccable. It still is.

I did not even know he had ex-girlfriends, for the longest time. Lol. I tell you I was seriously naive. One was a famous actress in Puerto Rico. Lol. And I met her at a party she was giving me all kinds of strange looks. I did not know what to make of them. Then she came up to me and said, "Me voy a casar con un cubano rico y viejo que me pueda mantener. Pero, el novio tuyo es dificil de olvidar." I was so stupid. I thought she was talking about rehearsals or something. I asked Papotito and he turned bright red like a tomato. Lol. And clammed up. Later on from a gay guy from the theater I learnt that the actress loved the physical part of the relationship. And Papotito broke up with her because she told him to his face that she needed a rich man not some young man as sweet as him with empty pockets. Lol. Who knows what happened to her now? Lol. I calculate there were only about 5 ex-girlfriends in total. And all of them without exception still liked him a whole lot. And still do. That is rare I think. Lol. There was one absolutely stunning woman. She had the loveliest face and the curviest body I had ever seen on a Puerto Rican woman. She was just gorgeous. And nice. My husband taught an exercise class she would attend and they studied some theater together. She told me she really wanted my husband. (THat was before meeting me and during our noviazgo), because he was the only man who would look at her face and eyes and listen to her. La mujer tenia un cuerpazo de primera and all the men would be looking at something different. Lol. Except my husband. And she said he was the only one who turned her down. Out of all the men she 'fancied'. I wondered why he turned her down and asked him, and he said, "ella es preciosa es verdad. Pero, yo sabia que no estaba enamorado de ella, y eso no seria justo para ella. Una mujer merece honestidad." Well. 20 years later folks, la honestidad y la belleza emocional de mi esposo is about as rare as can be in this world. Lol. FIN.

[Suki]

[quote]Originally posted by Eddier1
[b]Stan, Suki is quite correct in what she said about me and erotic stuff. I have long time now been freed from the "tyranny of sex", and before she knew lots about me, she asked if changing her way of expressing herself would help the mentoring on communism that we were into. I told her emphatically not to change her way of being at all, but to be comfortable in expressing herself as she saw fit. And we got on fairly well in our long discussions going all the way back to the beginnings of philosophy up to the present philosophers.

Suki: I am glad I don't have to change my way of expression with you Eddie. Cuz, I loved those philosophical conversations. And I don't exaggerate when I say I could listen to you ALL day and never get bored. Truly. Don't revoke my library card handsome Eddie. Or I might 'fly off the handle' with you. Lol.

Afterall, it wasn't too difficult because all of philosophy, including dialectical materialism has been a footnote to Plato, the Greek, and first Academician in his Academy down the road from the Agora. However, you seem to be much younger than me, and see lots of erotic energy flowing from Suki to you, and if not me, to other men in this forum. That is something you got to explain to her, and if you retract it, then what value do you opine you would have in anything else that you say. I know, I know, never expect the truth from anybody regarding sex. But if you know that too, why point out the eroticism you said you perceived? You know very well that Suki is a Hindu, and eroticism has been a major part of that religion for many centuries (it is a very old religion, probably dating back to the 11th century B.C.. It is older than Buddhism and Confuciousism, and certainly older than Judaism and Judeo-Christianity and, of course, Islam. But take note, that Suki disavows the erotic side of Hinduism, and has said so on this forum. I suppose, however, as a cultural anthropologist she has read the Kama Sutra, and other erotic literature of the Far East, but then that is part of her job, isn't it?

Suki: I read everything I can get a hold of. All aspects of culture. Now I am gearing up for some archaeology. And am reading up on that. I love all aspects of culture. I don't consider myself erotic ever Eddie. I think when one is reading and concentrating one should pay attention to that 100%. When one is eating and cooking one should concentrate on that experience. And when one is engaging in sex, one should concentrate on that as well. Focused energy. Being present in all of life's experiences. With my practices they teach you how to try to control all energy flows and make them serve you and not you serve them. It is a discipline. And when one does it properly and with much effort one feels in control of many things in life. It is a discipline. Very much like Karate or Aikido. And transcendental meditation accompanied by breathing exercises teach you a whole lot about internal states. Emotional and mental. Basta no hablare de eso mas. I won't. I don't want to be blasted by others for being who I am. The person who you can control the best in this world will always be foremost yourself. Lol. Trying to get others to do things without their consent or cooperation is foolhardy.

I only had optimism when I knew she was a working anthropologist, and was looking forward for that moment of epiphany, when she would have a sudden perception of the truth of communism. But it was not to be. And she opines that she had something like that with Erich Fromm's socialism based on matriarchical centrism. I don't think so...

Suki: One day we will have to sit down and exchange ideas about socialism Eddie. For I think, I am understanding your perspective more and more. And the more I do. The more every aspect about your life makes more sense to me. But I require freedom from the Maitreya's and prying eyes to do that, explore that with you. Maybe someday.

There is nothing motherly about real socialism, the epiphany makes any commie who has had it fight and die for the core values of scientific socialism. It made the commies of Leningrad withstand the siege of all the might of the Werhmact and Luftwaffe for almost 300 days. The commies starved, but kept on fighting as long as they could, until the Germans had to give up and move their armed forces towards Stalingrad, and they failed there, too!The day when the counter attack by our commie soldiers began there was a line of cannon almost 15 miles long. And when they all fired in unison, the foundations of the world shook!, and they kept on firing at will, while the infantry attacked the German forces dashing over hill and dale into the Wermacht until the German forces had to sound the retreat, and it continued all the way back to the bunkers of Berlin, where we commies were the first to enter and win the war. There was everything with the strength of the Man in this

Suki: Eddier1, we have absolute agreement for once. I think about women communist or otherwise, getting blown to bits and seeing those females dead and bloodied on some battlefield fighting Nazis and all I can think of is how horrifying that is. Men dying in a violent way, through gunshot wounds, cold, forced starvation is bad enough Eddie. But be honest Eddie. As a man, how demoralizing for a country and a people is seeing dead women in some battlefield? How can a country bounce back from the casualties of war and deprivation with no women? I truly believe women do not belong there in combat situations. Strong males like you were at the time, do belong there. And I believe women and their feminine endeavors in life, is what makes you men want to go back home. And be part of that lovely female reality and try to forget for a while all that blood and sacrifice. Scientific socialism is not against protecting women and children I know. But in making society free from so many things that are keeping people from being just with one another. Truth. One can speak of that for many a page and still have much to say at the end. And those commies you mention, were true nuevo hombre people, and willing to die for their hope for a better future and reality for their children and their society. All deep change is painful and difficult Eddie. And sometimes it moves slowly. But change is inevitable. And truth can't be obliterated or detained. Ever. It will always emerge. Remember I said long ago, transformation and change for the better is inevitable, but it costs. It costs. Blood, tears, facing fears, sacrifices, difficulties, and constant struggle. I just happen to think that once you struggle hard enough and keep on doing so, there should be an emotional and mental balance struck or else, life becomes bitter. And as the great Chinese cooks and chefs say. Yes there is bitter in life, but there is also sweet. That is how you distinguish things. Gracias a la vida que me ha dado tanto. Me dio dos luceros, con ellos distingo lo negro del blanco, y en alto cielo, su fondo estrellado, y entre las multitudes el hombre que yo amo. Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto, me ha dado la risa y me ha dado el llanto, con ellos distingo dicha de quebranto....Balance. Contrast. But war is so horrific Eddie. It is so painful and difficult. Your historical circumstances I might not ever in a million years be able to perceive handsome Eddie. I never have been faced with all the circumstances you have faced. Such strength Eddie in crisis. It is what rare men are made of. Strength in crisis. You have more than paid your dues to society Eddier1. And have a right to do and say and be and share all that experience with everyone. I am glad you are on here. And always will be.

and the woman, some who were soldiers too, participated, but the matriarchical element remained in a fortress of protection; how then can Suki with her revisionist Marxism, ala Eric Fromm from the safety of academia, say that her socialism gave her an epiphany?

Suki: I can't relate to your fighting experiences Eddie. Never been in that situation. But I can relate to the part about ending exploitation, ending having people used as commodities. And so many great aspects of Socialist and communist thought. That has such important truths.

And that her socialism is the true socialism, sans the patriarchical? No way, Suki!
Suki: Your socialism Eddier1 is what is the disciplined one, the one of strength, and facing fear and fighting injustice and so many things. And like I said once before, matriarchical or patriarchal, they are not supposed to fighting for supremacy, but cooperating handsome Eddie for mutual benefit. Working off each other's great assets, not trying to dominate one over the other. Each has its place in history. Yours is clear. Very clear. And I am glad of it. I will think hard on it handsome Eddie. You always give me food for thought.

; I ask you to rethink your life and thought, and give it the good sober second thought in tranquillity. Our differences are basically interfactional ones based on these issues of scientific socialism in contradistinction to revisionist socialism. At present, that is all there is to it!

Suki: I will explore the theme more (it certainly deserves it). I will. And I must think on many things. I will keep those things close in mind. I see so many things in you and in the way you have lived that philosophy. Ay Eddie. Ay tanto que hay que aprender y tan poco tiempo. Hay tanta injusticia y tan poco tiempo para intentar rectificar los danos.




Suki.

[Edited by Suki on 15th July 2003 at 02:24]

[Eddier1]

When Suki said the following she got it right:
"Scientific socialism is not against protecting women and children I know. But in making society free from so many things that are keeping people from being just with one another. Truth."
----------------------------------------
However, Suki, let me add that handsome is as handsome does. It takes action to bring about a society which is truly free. Where does the motivation come from when men and even some women are willing to face the horrors of war in order to achieve such goals? It comes from a profound and sudden perception into the essential nature of something; its truth. Without that experience, there could never be the will and determination to fight on, no matter what, in order to be victorious. Those who may feel that such people are barbaric and used to hardships, simply do not understand what such truth can do to transform the people into such heroes and heroines of socialist labor. We see many persons daily who belong to the working class, and they seem shallow and tired, and desperate to make ends meet, and more live a "dream" that they have had inculcated into them by the advertising media of the bourgeoisie. How do these driven and money grubbing individuals stack up against the heros and heroines above? They are pathetic in comparison to them, and what makes the difference between them and those that 'have seen the dawn and it is red'?; it is that the former have yet to achieve an epiphany, that sudden perception that convinces. They exist but are not convincing. And for the most part the advertising media, which is the message of capitalism is the cause of their sorry mental and also often physical status. But don't look down on them, because who knows when they will achieve that great experience of perceiving suddenly the truth, and will be mightly transformed into the highest stage of the new men and women of scientific socialism. And they will do wonders, mighter than the traditional wonders of the world, and the bourgeoisie fear that more than anything in the world. Ivy league nests and ivory towers are merely cop-outs, and make shallow and vapid individuals, who think they are so smart, and by making themselves bigger than they are, only show themselves to be condescending egotists. Fighting for freedom can be horrible, but it is better than being what those failures in life are.