It's who you know that counts.

Or demonstrates just how out to lunch Pentagon personnel are.
 
Glaucus said:
Or demonstrates just how out to lunch Pentagon personnel are.
Click to expand...

Most of the sheep in the flock are too smart to believe in "conspiracy theories" and yet there are always those few wingnuts who are convinced that the shepherd is actually the one telling the dog what to do.
 
Glaucus said:
Poor analogy.
Click to expand...

Unless you have some information to back that up then the best we can say is that in your opinion the analogy doesn't apply here. Otherwise it is merely an analogy but it's goodness or poorness is unquantifiable.
 
It is a poor analogy because your statement implies that the "smart" sheep believe the dog is working on behalf of their best interests, however that's not possible as the dog can only herd the sheep by scaring them. Therefor all sheep already fear the dog, the fact that the shepherd exploits this to keep them safe from the wolves is at this point irrelevant. There would be no need for "wingnuts" warning that the dog is herding the sheep for the shepherd as they already mistrust and fear the dog.

EDIT: Back to topic. Yes, it is who you know that counts. And sometimes that's how people get to top positions. That also means that the possibility of incompetence at this top position is very real: Nuclear submarine HMS Astute runs aground off Skye. Doh!
 
Glaucus said:
It is a poor analogy because your statement implies that the "smart" sheep believe the dog is working on behalf of their best interests, however that's not possible as the dog can only herd the sheep by scaring them.
Click to expand...

I see. It is a poor analogy because you misunderstood it. You have gone places I did not indicate.

The sheep all fear the dog. Most of the sheep do not believe that the bad scary dog has anything to do with the shepherd. The "smart" sheep do not believe the dog is working in their interests, they just do not believe that the shepherd is in league with the dog.

The existence of any wolf is irrelevant. The control works because of the substitute (but servile) wolf i.e. the dog. There may be no wolf at all (there are none in the UK, but many shepherds with dogs). The sheep fear the dog but it is the shepherd that will fleece them and eat their babies on festive occasions.
 
I ruled out that interpretation as typically those referred to as "sheeple" are those who blindly trust their leaders and follow without question. In your analogy the sheep regard the dog, shepherd and the irrelevant wolves as enemies (although in reality they're probably only aware of the dog, until they're killed by either the shepherd or the wolf of course). I'm just not getting it. Anyway, let's not get caught up on analogies, I think we both know where we stand regardless. It's sorta like how you and I can disagree and yet always agree to disagree with fade, and yet, nothing like it. :lol:
 
Have you guys been wiring into some of that famous B.C. weed? :mrgreen:
 
Glaucus you defeat yourself by over thinking. None of what you say here comes from anything that I have said.

The statement as given (but let me strip it if irony) is...

Most of the sheep see no connection between the shepherd and the scary dog (and even ridicule the idea) but some sheep (who the others ridicule) suspect that the converse is true based on clues that they have noticed.

The perception of the benevolence of the shepherd is neither required nor implied and the same goes for the existence of wolves.
 
Robert said:
Have you guys been wiring into some of that famous B.C. weed? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No, but the house I am living in now WAS wired for weed.
 
The only one making any sense in this thread so far has been Glaucus.

Fluffy, see you added Fox News to your reliable news sources now.

Seems to me the shepard can't tell the difference between a sheep and a wolf in a sheepskin
 
metalman said:
Fluffy, see you added Fox News to your reliable news sources now.
Click to expand...
I thought I'd use Fox because some people might be less prone to argue against the truth of the story that way.
Seems to me the shepard can't tell the difference between a sheep and a wolf in a sheepskin
Click to expand...
So you are in the "stupid shepherd" camp? That may be slightly more alarming since they spend most of the nations GDP and have a lot of serious weapons. I'm actually more comforted to think they are devious but clinically clever.
 
“outreach”??

I hope it was a Sharia compliant meal.

Anwar Al-Awlaki was considered a “moderate Muslim, it appears that "moderation is in the eye of the beheader."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top