The political positions into which those on this would painfully twist and stretch themselves into, in order to maintain their undying support of the RepubliNazis, are sometimes ver humorous.

Grog:

Why would you think that we Nazis would be bothered by repression of Leftist groups?

Not as humorous as your posts grog. You need to switch from grog to Koolaid. For the nation, "Suicide is not an option." For folks like you it seems an objective.

The ONLY way this can hurt the admin is if evidence gathered from these intercepts was used improperly outside the realm of the war on terror. Given the reviews involved within the admin, it clearly was not. The dems are speaking of hypothetical situations while Bush can point to terrorist cells that have been stopped in time. It is utterly amazing that the Dems think this is a winner on the grounds of 'civil liberties'.

Just as the photos involved in Abu Ghraib do not nearly represent the kind of torture that detainees have no doubt been subjected to, and just as this administration and many others have been caught lying in hindsight about their abuses such power, and just as they alway reserve the right to reveal what they seek to and conceal what they seek to, I have no doubt in my mind that intercepts have been gathered by intelligence officials that have little to do with possible terror suspects.

And even if they were found to be totally disconnected, they would still be rationalized by the deputies of this site as being essential in the administrations exercise of their god-given, morally-affirming, and ultimately good-for-all power to defeat the enemy; just as every stupid and seemingly tyrannical act of foreign policy in the past 50 years as a battlefront in the Cold War.

The only thing that upsets me about this is that it is pretty clear that the BushHitler adminstration is NOT (apparently) wiretapping folks like Michael Moore and George Soros.

Grog:

Americans liked Abu Ghraib and winning the Cold War.

OJ:

You didn't really get my point, which, in a way, is kind of my point.

He did get your point. OJ made a better one.

Grog:

You expressed your point best here:

"A new comment has been posted on your blog BrothersJudd Blog, on entry #29117 (THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC ISN'T PLATO'S:).

View this comment:

IP Address: 69.204.209.42
Name: Grog
Email Address:
URL:
Comments:

Americans are idiots."

The Left's hatred of Americans is it's precise problem.

Grog:

First rule of persuasion: don't call people names if you want to win them over.

Further, calling us "RepubliNazis" is not only insulting and counterproductive to your cause, it's also wildly inaccurate. hate to be the one to break it to you, but real, genuine, self-identified Nazis are pretty much on your side in opposing the war. It's not nice to treat your allies like that.

The other day, I stuck up for you in another thread, on the theory that you were a dissenter engaged in legitimate discourse and not a troll. I see now I was wrong.

Ouchie.

I'm a troll because I make a pun into the name of the Republican Party? Ok. I'm sorry I hurt all of your feelings, even though, If i wanted to, I could point to dozens of previous situations where others have done the same; on a regular basis.

Americans are idiots? Well, they are certain less educated than the rest of the developed world, in a number of areas.

If any of you want to engage in legitmate discourse, try to give me an answer to post on how the president can justify any abuse of power in order to maintain itself? How there seems to always be an enemy with which to justify these types of powers? How that is very comprable to the Nazis creating the enemies of the German people? How the mistakes of the past are used to justify present actions that bear very similar in resemblance to the initial mistakes of the past?

Americans are idiots? Well, they are certain less educated than the rest of the developed world, in a number of areas.

That must be why no foreigners immigrate or study here, and hundreds of thousands of Americans are leaving. It's a real crisis.

Lefties crying now about outrageous privacy rights violations can start looking at the US tax code and employment law between their readings of Wolff and Gramsci.

The Left cannot be blamed for all or even most of the idiotic pieces of legislation spearheaded by the Democrats.

Grog:

Is Jimmy Carter a DemoNazi for using warrantless wiretaps and searches? Is Bill Clinton a DemoNazi for using warrantless electronic eavesdropping and searches?

Grog:

Is Jimmy Carter a DemoNazi for using warrantless wiretaps and searches? Is Bill Clinton a DemoNazi for using warrantless electronic eavesdropping and searches?

The Left cannot be blamed for all or even most of the idiotic pieces of legislation spearheaded by the Democrats.

Please tell us what magic country you come from where the Left never has pressed for intrusive legislation.

Ever been on a university campus?

And its funny to see postings side by side, that both bash American intellectuals and defend their values at the same time.

Most of those who come to study in America are from countries with less developed educational systems (i.e. third and second world countries).

So I guess you guys would like to say that Americans are smart, but not too smart?

Grog:

The values of intellectuals are antithetical to American values which is why there's such mutual hatred. You've just bet on the wrong horse.

Most of those who come to study in America are from countries with less developed educational systems (i.e. third and second world countries).

Why wouldn't they all go and study in Europe? Do you think Indian technical universities aren't good?

And I see you also don't know the sense of "intellectual" meant here. Better read Hofstadter and Oakeshott.

And why would Europeans or Canadians want to study here at all? Where are people "smarter" than in America? Have you ever studied in a European university?

Jim: Yes, Carter and Clinton are DemoNazis.

BMN: I could say make the same case for the intrusiveness of Republican legislation; they will usually intrude on anything that makes a quick buck, or prevents them from making a quick buck.

Where do you draw the line between the presidents' protecting America and abusing the power of the military? Like I said previously, this line will never be drawn, because supporters like people on this site, can rationalize the abuse of power as a means to justify and end that seems so elusive, and keeps being drawn into places that are very convenient for those who are most connected to Bush.

Grog:

The difference is that for the Right it isn't a partisan issue. Most of the folks here will defend sending Japanese Americans to concentration camps, along with the Left. But the Left pretends that was totally different than wiretapping people with ties to terrorists.

BMN: I could say make the same case for the intrusiveness of Republican legislation

Who denies that Bush is intrusive? OJ just said that he doesn't believe in privacy rights.

But you want to maintain the Left isn't. That's just not going to work.

>Most of those who come to study in America are from countries with less developed educational systems (i.e. third and second world countries).

Seriously, dude, what are you talking about? Science & engineering departments at US universities are full of Europeans at every level. Also East Asians & Indians, of course, but mostly from their elite universities.

b: Yes, its mostly Asians, that was my point.

I know America's most domestically manufactured product is its educational system at the collegiate level.

So why do you guys diss the opinions of professors and intellectuals?

BMN: The Democrats are intrusive as well, I never said otherwise.

BMN: The Democrats are intrusive as well, I never said otherwise.

No sir--you're not going to get away with Bad Democrats, Good Left. I didn't say Democrats are intrusive, although they are. I said the Left was.

Grog: You didn't hurt my feelings with the "Nazi" quip, though you did hurt your cause.

One problem you're having here is that your query is based on a whole host of unstated premises that you take as irrefutable, while most of the rest of us consider them unproven. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be assuming all of the following:

-- The NSA intercept program is unconstitutional and/or a violation of law.

-- There is no legitimate national security purpose for the NSA intercept program.

-- In initiating the NSA intercept program, President Bush was not, and could not have been, acting in good faith.

-- The Abu Grahib abuses were part of a systematic policy of torture and repression.

Now, you might be able to convince people of these premises if you marshall your arguments and treat folks with a bit of respect. (You might not.) Most of us are looking at the same facts as you are, and we're not seeing your premises as self-evident. That means we disagree, not that we're idiots, blind fanatics, or even evil goose-stepping agents of the Chimpy McHaliburton junta looking to smack you down because you just dared to speak truth to power.

OJ: This effectively allows for wiretapping anyone.

So why do you guys diss the opinions of professors and intellectuals?

Heard of "Rationalism in Politics"?

Mike Morley: I never called anyone on this site an idiot; at least during this discussion? I think all of you are very smart, and I meant that.

What we disagree on are the facts; You trust what Bush has said to be true, and I don't.

There is a legitimate purpose to the NSA intercept program.

Terrorism is an elastic clause.

Torture much worse than sexual humiliation has occurred at the expense of innocent Iraqis who were suspected to be connected to terrrorism.

Grog:
>Yes, its mostly Asians, that was my point.

Um, and my point was that it's actually not--it's mostly Europeans.

And let's suppose you were right. That Japanese educational system sure is 3rd world class. And the South Korean one, too. Oh, and those elite Chinese technology schools suck. And the India Institute of Technology-absolutely terrible. Do you even believe your own drivel?

Grog:

Yes, we should certainly use Echelon type techhnology to tap into any call anywhere that may be tied to terror.

I'm not sure why you guys are resisting Grog. Americans are stupid, which is why we've put the stupid party in charge of the government. Now, it's important to remember that we're stupid and have the world's most powerful military; that we're stupid and have the world's largest nuclear arsenal; that we're stupid and sent an army half-way round the world, invaded another country on the thinnest of pretexts, overthrew its government and installed a government more to our liking while spending less than 1% of GDP annually and losing fewer than 2000 troops to enemy action.

Frankly, if I were the rest of the world, I'd step quietly around stupid.

b: I really didn't want to get into an argument about the relative merits of colleges around the world. It really has little in common with with my intial points; and if you want, you can see what i've been saying simulataneously on the "Americans are idiots" statement, (as everyone hops on to argue my least significant point for a quick, easy, pot shot), on the quote itself that Judd referenced from another articles post (where it came from, it had little to do with my point as well).

Grog:
If you didn't make comments like this one: "Most of those who come to study in America are from countries with less developed educational systems (i.e. third and second world countries).", that are ludicrous and demonstrably false to anyone with some trivial amount of experience with the subject, you wouldn't be getting yourself into such trouble in these comments...

Mike's 11:55 post hits the nail squarely on the head. It's all about the assumptions. Lots of claims, nothing to back them up.

Jim: see my 12:01 post

b: How do American middle schools and high schools compare to those in other developed countries?

David: The mastermind that put together that plan weren't stupid. The Americans who let them get away with it are.

Everyone: can we get off the Americans are stupid? Please? and get back to the point of my 10:08, 11:06, and even 12:01 posts?

Grog:

You're missing the point--our values are "stupid".

Let's get off stupid because groggy has figured out that he's losing thatargument, so it's time to change it to something else. If you want to get off stupid, your post should have also contained these words that no Leftist will ever let pass their lips (or keyboard): "I was wrong."

b: How do American middle schools and high schools compare to those in other developed countries?

They're not as good. Of course, there is no possibility of Left teachers' unions' allowing the curriculum and standards of, let us say, a liceo classico (and mind you the student body of the licei classici are approximately 100% native Italian). They spend a lot less on education, too.

Competition for the liceo classico is intense, as well. If you don't get in, you can go to lower levels of licei (linguistico, tecnico, etc). By and large, however--no liceo, no university. Ready for that, Grog?

If your scores aren't high enough for the lower levels of licei, I should say, there is no liceo at all for you.

Finally, I really doubt American conservatives (much less Republican voters as a whole) would be receptive to this system, either.

Grog: There's no secret cabal of masterminds. All there is is people, and people is stupid.

We used to have standards in higher education too before our cultural revolution of the 60's.

The New York City system for example was very competitive. Only the top students got in from freshmen up through the graduate levels. More Nobel prize winner came from City College than any other institution in the world and many were first or second generation immigrants. Attending these schools was completely free for rich or poor.

It only took a few short years for the lefties to destroy that system.

Most days, I wish America was stupider - that we would kill Mugabe, Castro, Chavez, baby Kim, baby Assad, perhaps even Chirac.

That's 6 demonstrable murders for Grog (and lonbud, and KB, and the pinky of doom), and wotta difference it would make in the world! And just to balance things out, we could get a few Burmese generals and the Commie thugs in Nepal.

The UN would be investigating us for the next 20 years, but every other raving Chomsky / Peter Singer / pseudo-intellectual leftist who wanted to take over the world would have something to consider before enslaving his own people and making trouble. And we're not even talking Islamofascists yet.

The really amusing thing about Grog's assertions is that, if they really were true, he would never be allowed the freedom to say them.

Of course he wouldn't. He'd be strung up in one of our rumpus rooms, with a car battery clamped to his nuts and Pat Boone blasting over the loudspeakers, and then we'd all watch the video of his beheading on The Fox Report.. Putz.

National Review has a copy of the DoJ's brief in the NSA matter. It pretty much nails down all of the corners.

If you are interested in slightless detaied analysis, you should also read Hindrocket's analysis.

You guys are really funny.

I'll try again.

And even if they were found to be totally disconnected, they would still be rationalized by the deputies of this site as being essential in the administrations exercise of their god-given, morally-affirming, and ultimately good-for-all power to defeat the enemy; just as every stupid and seemingly tyrannical act of foreign policy in the past 50 years as a battlefront in the Cold War.

Anyone wanna comment on this? Or would you rather take the easy road?

OJ, this is for you:

Here is an example of natural selection. Geospiza fortis lives on the Galapagos islands along with fourteen other finch species. It feeds on the seeds of the plant Tribulus cistoides, specializing on the smaller seeds. Another species, G. Magnirostris, has a larger beak and specializes on the larger seeds. The health of these bird populations depends on seed production. Seed production, in turn, depends on the arrival of wet season. In 1977, there was a drought. Rainfall was well below normal and fewer seeds were produced. As the season progressed, the G. fortis population depleted the supply of small seeds. Eventually, only larger seeds remained. Most of the finches starved; the population plummeted from about twelve hundred birds to less than two hundred. Peter Grant, who had been studying these finches, noted that larger beaked birds fared better than smaller beaked ones. These larger birds had offspring with correspondingly large beaks. Thus, there was an increase in the proportion of large beaked birds in the population the next generation. To prove that the change in bill size in Geospiza fortis was an evolutionary change, Grant had to show that differences in bill size were at least partially genetically based. He did so by crossing finches of various beak sizes and showing that a finch's beak size was influenced by its parent's genes. Large beaked birds had large beaked offspring; beak size was not due to environmental differences (in parental care, for example).

The problem, Grog, is your ad hominem style.

You're specifically questioning the character of those who frequent this site, without saying ANYTHING that might objectively bolster your supporting assumptions.

All that gives us to work with is your character.

Post some arguments about the rationale for your beliefs, and those will be addressed.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 23, 2005 3:57 AM

Michael: Ok, here we go:

If any of you want to engage in legitmate discourse, try to give me an answer to post on how the president can justify any abuse of power in order to maintain itself? How there seems to always be an enemy with which to justify these types of powers? How that is very comprable to the Nazis creating the enemies of the German people? How the mistakes of the past are used to justify present actions that bear very similar in resemblance to the initial mistakes of the past?

Please comment.

Ok, some facts....

But Bush had plenty of bipartisan help from Democratic co-conspirators in keeping knowledge of this illegal spying from reaching the American public. It began in November 2001, in the wake of 9/11, and -- from the very first briefing for Congressional leaders by Dick Cheney until today -- Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were told about it. Those witting and complicit in hiding the crime included Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, former chairman and later ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, former ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. They knew it was a crime -- Rockefeller, for example, warned the administration against it -- and yet did not make it public. They were frightened by polls showing security hysteria at its height.

Worse, the New York Times itself was part of the coverup. When it broke its scoop last Friday, the Times in its article admitted that, "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

In other words, the Times sat on its story until after the 2004 presidential elections, when American voters might have been able to stop this criminal conduct by voting out the criminal. Not content with employing Judith Miller as the megaphone for relaying the Bush administration's lies about Saddam's having weapons of mass destruction, the Times again proved its servility to power by not telling its readers it knew of criminal spying on them for an entire year, until the election cycle was long past. Yet this aspect of the Times' story has gone unremarked in the mass media.

Bush's excuses for the illegal eavesdropping are indeed risible. The Times didn't mention it, but of 19,000 requests for eavesdropping the Federal Intelligence Security Court has received from the Executive Branch since 1979, only five have ever been refused. Bush claimed again on Monday that this flagrant flouting of the FISA law was necessary because fighting "terrorists" needed to be done "quickly." Yet, as the Times reported, the secret court can grant approval for wiretaps "within hours."

And the excuse Bush offered Monday morning that this illegal subversion of FISA was necessary to prevent 9/11-style terrorism is equally laughable. As the ACLU pointed out in a study of FISA two years ago, "Although the Patriot Act was rushed into law just weeks after 9/11, Congress's later investigation into the attacks did not find that the former limits on FISA powers had contributed to the government's failure to prevent the attacks."

A Zogby poll released Nov. 4 showed that, when asked if they agreed that, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment," Americans answered yes by 53 percent to 42 percent. It is therefore not simply extremist raving to suggest that impeachment of George Bush should be put on the table.

Remember that, in the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Article 2 of the three Articles of Impeachment dealt with illegal wiretapping of Americans. It said that Nixon committed a crime "by directing or authorizing [intelligence] agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office."

There was no national security justification for Bush's illegal NSA wiretaps -- which could easily have been instituted by following the FISA law's provisions -- and, instead of being related to "enforcement of laws," Bush's eavesdropping was indisputably in contravention of the law of the land.

The idea that Bush will be impeached, or that a majority of Americans would support such a move, defines the word "delusional".

From a standpoint of pure feasibility, it would require the Democrats to take back both the House and Senate, and not by slim margins, either.
While I expect the GOP to lose a few seats in the '06 elections, I further expect them to lose control of neither chamber.

One would have to postulate some huge new event taking place in '06, since none of the ongoing trials, investigations, scandals, or revelations has the potential to cause the Dem's fortunes to surge mightily, and that includes this dust-up over surveillance.
The people who are most likely to wax wroth over it are ALREADY firmly opposed to Bush; no further damage can be done, among those factions.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 23, 2005 4:57 AM

Michael:

It's vital to get a President Cheney in office to stop the creep of fascism.

Grog:

Our two most popular presidents are Lincoln who suspended habeus corpus and went to war with half the country to prevent it exercising its rights, and FDR who sent Japanese-Americans to cvoncentration camps. George W. Bush hasn't done anything yet that's anywhere near as serious, but as their examples show he could and no one would care.

If al Qaeda set off a dirty bomb in America the public would cheer on the genocide of American Muslims.

Grog:

The finches freely crossbreed--they never speciated.

Grog: The reason the NYT sat on the story is that it would NOT have hurt the President. In fact, it would have helped him. Kerry would have denounced the program and the President would have painted such opposition as pro-terrorist.

Please beat the impeachment drums. Please.

Grog: The reason you don't get reasoned responses is that you almost never make reasoned arguments. "You guys are all partison idiots because you would support the president no matter what" is not a reasoned argument. It's not even true. If the President were found to be having an extra-marital affair, not even in the Oval Office, not even with an intern, not even being ministered to while talking on the phone about troop deployments and not even lying about it under oath, Republicans would push him out of office before you could say "Fat-bottomed girls make the rocking world go round."

The other problem with your stand is that the three things you seem to feel show that we are partisan idiots don't bother us at all, because we agree with President on the merits -- and would even if the President were a Democrat. We'll take each of these serially: the President lied us into war; the US is engaging in torture; and the government is spying on Americans.

The President Lied Us Into War. No, he didn't. He was wrong about WMDs. Even if Saddam had some WMDs were either destroyed right before the war or moved to Syria, he clearly didn't have the capabilities or programs we thought he had. But there's no question that the administration truly believed that Saddam had WMDs. George Tenet told the President that it was a "slam dunk." Paul Wolfowitz noted that there were lots of reasons to invade Iraq, some of which were better reasons than WMDs, but that WMDs were the reason that everyone could accept. Being wrong is not the same as lying.

In fact, being wrong about WMDs buttresses the case for war. Iraq's sovereignty had been holed by the UN resolutions ending the war. The international community had rights of inspection that are unmatched. The US and England were flying over Iraq every day from the end of the first war to the beginning of the second. And we had no idea what was really going on in the country. After the first war, we found that we had been too sanguine about Iraq's weapons programs. They were much further along than we thought. After the second war, we found that we had been too worried. They weren't nearly as far along as we thought. If we can't know what's going on in Iraq even under the sanctions regimen, than we can never know. That necessarily lowers the threshold for going to war.

The President did make one mistake. He relied too heavily on the WMD case, when it wasn't his primary reason for invading. He did so for perfectly good reasons and for some less good reasons (to keep Powell and Blair happy). It was a mistake not to make the case rest primarily on our real reasons for the war while leaving WMDs as a make-weight, even if it would have meant that we went in alone. There is no question but that we still would have gone.

Torture. Frankly, there are lots of Americans who couldn't care less if our enemies are tortured, regardless of whether torture "works." The President and the government, though, are not among them. The President has ordered that the US not engage in torture, even though we are legally entitled to do so. The real argument is what is "torture," which I'm sure isn't quite so fun for you.

Abuse, like we saw at Abu Ghraib, is not torture, it is abuse. It is illegal, it is detrimental to the good order of the armed services, and it should be stamped out. As far as I can see, the government has done exactly that. Having said that, it would be juvenile (or perhaps Sullivanesque is the right word) to support the war but be shocked when innocents die or soldiers abuse prisoners. That happens in every war. It is, as I said, wrong and must be stamped out, but if one is not going to allow for these things to happen, they one is not serious about war.

Similarly, making prisoners stand or sit; listen to loud, bad music; stay awake; become disoriented, all strike me as legitimate interrogation techniques that fall short of torture. Anything we do to our own soldiers in training -- up to and including waterboarding -- strike me as legitimate interrogation techniques that fall short of torture. Things like using barking dogs, wrapping prisoners in the Israeli flag or spattering them with red ink and telling them it is menstrual blood don't even rise to the level of being worth questioning.

Frankly, my conclusion is that, instead of being set loose to wreak havoc on prisoners of war, interrgators have been hamstrung by the need to get permission from the highest levels to use even the gentlest of these pressure techniques.

Spying You've gotten a lot of answers on this -- because you actually made arguments worth responding to -- so I won't belabor it.

It is clear that the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit this type of spying. I haven't seen any lawyerly analysis saying that it does. So the question is whether FISA prohibits this type of spying, as it purports to do. I think that it doesn't. (By the way, I don't understand why you are taking on the administration for arguing that they couldn't get these warrants under FISA. Isn't that your point? If they could have gotten FISA warrants but just forgot, where is there any harm?)

First, I find Attorney-General Gonzalez' argument that the use-of-force authorization necessarily includes the authority to do signal intelligence against the enemy to be compelling.

Second, I do believe that the President's express power to wage war allows him to choose to spy on the enemy and that the Congress can't limit that power any more than it could, for example, legislate that the president shall not submit any nominee for the Supreme Court unless that nominee had already been pre-approved by the House and Senate acting jointly. In fact, even though Congress has plenary power over the budget, it could not refuse to let the government pay the salary of a justice not specifically approved by the House. The President's power to wage war is similarly beyond the power of Congress to regulate.

I have to admit, though, that my view is informed by my conviction that there is no right to privacy for email or cell phone conversations, and that a warrant is thus never constitutionally necessary.

And, to underscore Bob's point, I note that since the Times published the NSA story, W's approval rating has been skyrocketing, hitting 50/50 in Rasmussen today for the first time since July. Watch the Democrats drop this like a hot potato and then, by next fall, start to take credit for how they stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the president in securing the homeland against rogue cell phones.

This is still going on.

When one begin arguments by citing "this illegal spying." And I reply with cogent authorities demonstrating that there is nothing illegal going on. Insisting that no one is responding is going into Monty Python territory:

ARTHUR draws his sword and approaches the BLACK KNIGHT. A furious fight now starts lasting about fifteen seconds at which point ARTHUR delivers a mighty blow which completely severs the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm at the shoulder. ARTHUR steps back triumphantly.

ARTHUR: Now stand aside worthy adversary.

BLACK KNIGHT:
(Glancing at his shoulder)
'Tis but a scratch.

ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off.

BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.

ARTHUR: (Pointing to the arm on ground)
Well, what's that then?

BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.

ARTHUR: You're a liar.

BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!

(Another ten seconds furious fighting till ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHTS's other arm off, also at the shoulder. The arm plus sword, lies on the ground.)

ARTHUR: Victory is mine.
(sinking to his knees)
I thank thee O Lord that in thy ...

BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.

ARTHUR: What?

(BLACK KNIGHT kicks ARTHUR hard on the side of the helmet. ARTHUR gets up still holding his sword. The BLACK KNIGHT comes after him kicking.)

ARTHUR: You are indeed brave Sir knight, but the fight is mine.

BLACK KNIGHT: Had enough?

ARTHUR: You stupid b@$t@rd. You havn't got any arms left.

BLACK KNIGHT: Course I have.

ARTHUR: Look!

BLACK KNIGHT: What! Just a flesh wound.
(kicks ARTHUR)

ARTHUR: Stop that.

BLACK KNIGHT:
(kicking ARTHUR)
Had enough ... ?

ARTHUR: I'll have your leg.
(He is kicked.)
Right!

(The BLACK KNIGHT kicks ARTHUR again and ARTHUR chops BLACK KNIGHT's leg off. The BLACK KNIGHT keeps his balance with difficulty.)

BLACK KNIGHT: I'll do you for that.

ARTHUR: You'll what ... ?

BLACK KNIGHT: Come Here.

ARTHUR: What are you going to do. bleed on me?

BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!

ARTHUR: You're a looney.

BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs. Have at you!

ARTHUR takes his last leg off. The BLACK KNIGHT's body lands upright.

BLACK KNIGHT: All right, we'll call it a draw.

ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.

(ARTHUR and PATSY start to cross the bridge.)

BLACK KNIGHT: Running away eh? You yellow bastard, Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Grog:

By the way, I've responded to your latest inane posting on the war here.

I just thought I'd do you the courtesy of letting you know.

Grog:

Whoops, it seems I've gotten you and "kb" mixed up. My apologies (on this issue).