Isn't it Ironic that the same people against getting a moderator are now complaining about "uncivil" behavior by JackO.

2 more weeks, and it looks like Jack0s been here since 2001.

No moderator is gonna make you any more sensible or worth listening to.  You have to go back to school and learn for yourself.  Or at least RTFM.

So is this censorship shit an idea you got from your hero namesake?   You know, along with murdering family members?

I second for the moderator .. I think it would be hilarious watching jacko curse out the mod as soon as he is allowed back on..Who on this board would think that jacko could ever be civil? Well maybe if someone is bowing to him and he is sitting in a really big red velvet  chair.. and a hat with giant plumes. I wonder if Napolean was comfortable when he was in his in his big red chair?

you know, somebody to teach stone age heroes that we don't capitalize articles in the middle of a sentence.

I am not French so when you say we I know you are not talking about me.. I agree with you following proper English writing though.. I would if I wanted to but I don't so I won't..Also it would help if I had more than a ninth grade education YOU KNOW but I don't!! I sure do love MY freedom!!!

Not continuously.

Don't you remember when Ben gave you a TIME OUT for a couple of months?

no one really gives a fuck enough to waste their time "moderating us"

i sure don't

now fuck off all you lib/proggy traitors!!!

lol

I think it's Jack0's "omnipresence"  and ubicquity and not his "incivility" which inspires most of the ill-will toward him.

I ontinuue to say, if you don't like him, don't read his posts.

TER P&R -- all Jack0, all the time!?

the problem with putting the clamps on jack0 the blabO is he also posts some of the funniest shit you'll ever see here...

the stuff on Shaka Zulu is priceless...

-- Modified on 10/28/2007 6:28:43 PM

the problem with putting the clamps on jack0 the blabO is he also posts some of the funniest shit you'll ever see here...

the stuff on Shaka Zulu is priceless...

Keep Jacko unmoderated but just don't allow him any other alias? Or at least keep it to three.

Each likely Jack0 alias appears to have a "characer" of it's own, and as BK notes, most are amusing as hell.  I wonder if he's the one behind AManLikeAnyOther?

So again I say, the solution is simple -- don't read Jack0 if he's so fundamentally offensie and roubling to you.

Did it really have to fall to me to point out the painfully obvious?  This is like reinventing the wheel or rediscoveringg fire.  Sheesh.

How is it obvious if he is allowed to use a alias .. I usually read jacko but OCCASIONALLY I am not drunk and I don't. If I knew every alias he used THEN I would be able to screen him like caller ID but since he uses many it gets confusing.. heck I might be talking to jacko's clone  now..but to tell you the truth in the grand scheme of things I don't really care as you know I am not here all that much. To answer your  question I would wager he is behind man like no other or most other conceited handles..Also Jacko is not fundamentally offensive at all to me .. He is merely intellectually offensive to me and thats fairly bad coming from a ninth grader..

By the way if you bothered to actually read the article you would know all what you say about Shaka Zulu is false and has been discredited by modern day researchers.

So the legend contiunues....

But since I am only educated to the ninth grade I guess its okay to tolerate his infatuation with the wheel and fire...

or at least a specific allegation.   I was looking at the links YOU provided.

Incidentally those links said that image wasn't accurate.  

Facts are your friend, buddy.  Find some.

do you want to do to the school nurse and get some Prozac?

you ought to try it

I said IF I didn't have a ninth grade education XM1 would really get on my nerves..As it is I only have a ninth grade education so he doesn't get on my nerves..Let me explain it in more detail for you..Since I am not so smart and only have a ninth grade education someone like XM1 who is also not so smart doesn't get on my nerves...If he was smarter he would get down to my level and make me feel dumb but since he is also dumb and especially incoherent of reality we get along great.You sure are awful stupid to have Dr. in front of your name.

IOW, put up or shut up.

-- Modified on 10/29/2007 6:57:35 AM

IOW, "here" is TER.  Some of us have lives outside P&R.  Some of us read & write faster than our fingers can follow.

our African hero, the Protector of Hurt Feelings.  He's gonna impale you with his - well, maybe those furry thingies.   After he gets thru bashing his kids' brains out.

So this educational limitation actually protects your nerves?  

I'm curious about this defect, because education doesn't make most Americans nervous.

I wasn't complaining about your behavior, just pointing out that those against getting a moderator were. Neither was I advocating getting a moderator in this particular thread; thats the reason I used the word proposed.

This is my quote:
" I proposed getting A Moderator for the Board...
Isin't it ironic that the same people against getting a moderator are now complaining about "uncivil" behavior by JackO.

But your to paranoid to figure that out.  

-- Modified on 10/29/2007 10:20:18 AM

and (b) Shaka did something good in his lifetime, that should be admired.

But for some reason you can't explain what.  Maybe talking is a skill that requires more schooling, and Shaka wasn't into book larnin'.

The way I see it, the Zulus fucked themselves by aligning with the apartheid govt as often as not, so that even if they are the biggest tribe, their influnce is - well, what you would expect from a tribe about 100 years past the stone age.  OK, maybe Iron Age.  That puts them where the Greeks were about the 10th century BC.   Well, that and I'm sure the kids all have multicolored Nikes and X-boxes - even if the trash may not be collected regularly.

So this Zulu nation is what Shaka established, by killing over 2 million Africans (especially the women and children by impalement - though he seems to have knifed his wife, and bludgeoned his infant kid) while the British were at his doorstep.

Is that wrong?   Is that what you admire?

Now why can't you find some other African to admire?  Is Haile Selassie too far advanced and maybe a little pale for you?  What about Nelson Mandela?  Tookie Williams?  At least Tookie stayed in school long enough to figure out how to use a gun.

All ya gotta do is read and look for similarities. [not that we don't have some accomplished mimics in our midst]. Even drunk it's not an impossible  challenge.

Apologies for getting on your nerves quad, but hey, ya know, it's a tough and uncaring world out there.  I'll go back to baiting DocGonzo if that's going to make you feel beter.

Whoever or whatever this JackO is he seems to have a 'system' that allows him to post under multiple names in a single thread without raising the ire of the administration. This would lead me to believe that it is either someone with a granted immunity to standard board protocols, or a well versed digerati who can mask his computer somehow from redundant IP detection.

 Either way; the best defense is to ignore what you dislike from his keyboard and simply move on to a different thread or board.  

I was asking you about Shaka the African Hero.

You don't mind, do you?

There is no official moderator on this board to enforce that.

Most people on this board say they don't want a moderator but at the same time they complain about Jacko.

and are you just a sad little puppy who loves mindless authority?

We notice you have time to pore over the rules, but no time to answer questions, like, do you have a link to support any of your assertions?  Exactly what do you admire about Shaka?

-- Modified on 10/29/2007 9:38:25 PM

This is taken from the wikipedia article: Scholarship in recent years has revised views of the sources on Shaka's reign. The earliest are two eyewitness accounts written by white adventurer-traders who met Shaka during the last four years of his reign. Nathaniel Isaacs published his Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa in 1836, creating a picture of Shaka as a degenerate and pathological monster which survives in modified forms to this day. Isaacs was abetted in this by Henry Francis Fynn, whose so-called Diary (actually a rewritten collage of various papers) was edited by James Stuart only in 1950. Both men were disreputable charlatans who ran guns, fought as mercenaries, murdered in cold blood, and tried to trade in slaves. This is clear from contemporary archival documents.

Their now discredited accounts may be balanced by the rich resource of oral histories collected around 1900 by (ironically) the same James Stuart, now published in 6 volumes as The James Stuart Archive. Stuart's early 20th century work was continued by D. McK. Malcolm in 1950. These and other sources such as A.T. Bryant gives us a more Zulu-centred picture. Most popular accounts are based on E. A. Ritter's novel Shaka Zulu (1955), a potboiling romance which was re-edited into something more closely resembling a history. The work of John Wright (history professor at University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg), Julian Cobbing and Dan Wylie (Rhodes University, Grahamstown) have been among a number of writers that have modified these stories.

Various modern historians writing on Shaka and the Zulu point to the uncertain nature of Fynn and Issac's accounts of Shaka's reign. A standard general reference work in the field is Donald Morris' "The Washing of The Spears" (1965) which notes that sources as a whole for the historical era are not the best. Morris nevertheless references a large number of sources, including Stuart, and A.T. Bryant's extensive but uneven "Olden Times in Zululand and Natal" which is based on four decades of exhaustive interviews of tribal sources. After sifting through these sources and noting their strengths and weaknesses, Morris generally credits Shaka with a large number of military and social innovations, and this is the general consensus in the field. (Morris 617-620).

Military historians of the Zulu War must also be considered for their description of Zulu fighting methods and tactics, including authors like Ian Knight ("Anatomy of the Zulu Army") and Robert Edgerton ("Like Lions They Fought"). General histories of Southern Africa are also valuable including Noel Mostert's "Frontiers" and a detailed account of the results from the Zulu expansion, J. D Omer-Cooper's "The Zulu Aftermath", which advances the traditional Mfecaneh theory.

-- Modified on 10/29/2007 10:19:28 PM

The book is about the rise and fall of the Zulu nation. Some parts of the book are not available online.

Your source is a MOVIE, not even alleged to be historically accurate.

My questions don't really depend on your flaky witnesses.

Did in fact Shaka spend almost all of his time killing Africans while the British were at his doorstep?

Do you accept historical estimates of African casualties?

Do you accept that Shaka's year long rampage at his mother's death, resulting in a wrecked tribal economy, triggered his brothers to kill him and dump his body?  That was a psychopathic episode.

Do you accept that Shaka routinely impaled women and children to instill terror?

If you don't, then what do you know about him that doesn't come from this movie, and an anonymous scriptwriter?

Isn't it true that Shaka's legacy is limited to the Zulus, which are the largest tribe in South Africa, and still can't throw their weight?

It amazes me that you want to worship this individual whose sole legacy appears to be mindless violence, when there are in fact a few alternatives.  You know, Idi Amin.  Tookie Williams, for chrissakes.

Discrediting one witness does not prove up anything else.  Your logic alone discredits you.

And you haven't answered the original questions.

-- Modified on 10/30/2007 1:18:42 AM

that way, you won't look so dumb when you're talking to yourself.

2nd, all history is hearsay.  The way to deal with it is (a) don't make conclusions you don't need to; (b) base your conclusions in facts that are inescapable, or (c) at least uncontested.

The fact is that the Zulus aren't going anywhere.  That's inescapable.  So what did Shaka build?

Some uncontested facts are that Shaka organized and used an army, but to do what?  Shaka almost totally ignored the British, in favor of killing other Africans, including his mentor and predecessor, as far as we know, his wife & child, and was in turn killed by his brothers, who must have loved him a lot.  The trigger for that assassination seems to have been when he set about wrecking the Zulu economy.

What justification can you imagine for impaling women & children?  How many people do you think he killed, and for what?

Do you think it might have been smart for him to check out the British, and see what they were doing?  Apparantely he did not recognize them as a  serious threat.

It seems obvious to me that you really don't have much information beyond this movie, and you're not much into facts or research or thinking, and IMHO, that may be one of Africa's problems - the worship of violent heroes,  instead of people who actually build something.

So exactly what is it that you admire about this man?  That he built a nation by killing other Africans, so that nation would be overwhelmed by the British?

How do you get off saying he's "just like Winston Churchill"?

I'll tell you what is pretty obvious - you've committed yourself to thoughtlessness, and again, that may indeed be part of Africa's problem.

The people who wrote the first accounts of Shaka Zulu were British adventures who were murderers, slave traiters, gun runners and have been discredited by modern day historians. There was no way the Zulu tribe would know that The British wanted to attack them; the British were initially very friendly to the Zulu's. Those two British charlatans who have been discredited as sources are the people who unfortunaltey made up the image of Shaka Zulu. These are the sources that you believe.

There is no way anyone can assume Shaka was that brutal based on the accounts of those two people. None of these accounts were based on the Zulu tribesman who were alive during and after Shakas death.  

Historians may never know the exact details of Shaka's reign. The facts remain Shaka Zulu built a powerful Zulu empire at the time and changed African military warfare.

-- Modified on 10/29/2007 11:25:33 PM

Just because you have been here since 2001 doesn't mean you can violate Ter rules.

Are we suppose to have one set of rules for you and another for the rest of us.

Your constant use of multiple aliases in the same thread has been a blatant violation of Ter rules and guidlines. Maybe Ben Dover should come here again and give you another timeout in the corner.

You need to go back to the newbie section and learn how to follow Ter rules.

-- Modified on 10/29/2007 11:52:32 PM

and I can suspect you're a stupid fuck when you do.

The Zulu under Shaka had extensive contact with the British, and engaged them in battle.  Therefore, you contend, there is no way that the Zulu would know the British would want to attack them.  Riight!

It seems very unlikely that only 2 people would be the basis for all reports about Shaka.  It seems much more likely that there would be considerable reports based on tribesmen who in fact knew and observed Shaka.

But let's say for the sake of argument that these 2 are the only sources, and they are in fact not credible.  

Then, what DO you know?  Looks like to me, if you discredit these fellows, you have nothing left, and certainly not enough to admire him about.  As I've pointed out, the Zulus are an ethnic and historic backwater, that are not throwing their weight.

I'll tell you what you're admiring.  You like the movie image of an African Robin Hood, and you don't want to be bothered with the high probability that this fellow was actually a psychotic thug, an early day Idi Amin, a stone age Stalin.

Now, Shaka is dead and gone, and his tribe may be close behind.  But the thought process you display isn't, and it may in fact tell us something about why Africa has problems, when it idolizes people like this, instead of others like Nelson Mandela.

To the degree that Africans value violence in their heroes above diplomacy, that is what they will get.  To the degree Africans value speculation and myth above hard fact, that is what they will get.  

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

and by then you'll know why they aren't convincing.  Because they don't convey any more information than "is so/is not".

leave the white man alone.  You don't need to see his papers.  He is not the droid you are looking for.

-- Modified on 10/30/2007 9:30:35 AM

because teaching people to fight well with spears in the presence of maxim guns is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If people know so much about Zulu tactics, how could they miss Zulu politics?

Oh, they linked to your movie for that.  Cool.

Get a clue, Willis.  Historians don't cite movies as source material.   Movies are straight from the imagination of a fucking screenwriter.  They are NOT REAL.

I'm so fucking retarded that I don't have any ego to invest in every fucking word posted on P&R.

So I don't have to figure out that sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Wait a minute - on the internet, even sticks & stones won't break my bones - HAHAHA!  I just discovered something!  Can I patent it?

Look!  I found a fortune cookie!  What does it say?  It says, "Anybody who can't get over words on P&R forum is pretty fucking pathetic"

Well whaddya know about that?

There's a lot of emphasis on "role models" as being healthy. Being a fan of somebody might be a happy state, but it doesn't make it a means of success.  

You've adopted a character to be your hero. That's the point. For that purpose, it really doesn't matter if the person was real or fiction, does it?  

But how does killing two million people make him admirable to you, so much so that you adopt him as your handle and promote him? For myself, I could see that Josef Stalin and Genghis Khan were crafty and intelligent men. It doesn't mean I'm their fan. It somehow doesn't sound healthy to say that they killed millions and then tell people how wonderful they were.