|
21 Jan 00 - 01:07 PM (#166245) Subject: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Peter T. "Il faut cent fois plus d'esprit pour faire l'amour, que pour commander les armees". "It takes a hundered times more intelligence to make love than it does to command an army". -- the famous/infamous Madame Ninon de Lenclos, who ran a 17th century Parisian salon. Her most famous words were said to be, "Ah! Le bon billet qu'a La Châtre!" (Ah, my promise to La Châtre) which she used to say whenever she was in the throes of passion -- The Marquis de la Châtre was her official lover, and when he left Paris with the army, he made her sign a written promise (un billet) that she would be faithful to him while he was away; which she notoriously wasn't. |
|
21 Jan 00 - 01:37 PM (#166256) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Ringer Well, if her most famous words are a sample of her wit, I'm not surprised that her "thought for the day" is also incorrect |
|
21 Jan 00 - 01:41 PM (#166259) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Peter T. In what way? yours, Peter T. |
|
21 Jan 00 - 01:56 PM (#166265) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: catspaw49 Hmmmmm...... General Johnny "Wad" Holmes....interesting thought. Probably doesn't speak too well for Colin Powell though........... Spaw |
|
21 Jan 00 - 02:45 PM (#166284) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: annamill Well, at least she was faithful to him while he was around. ;-) Love, annap
|
|
21 Jan 00 - 06:56 PM (#166382) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Little Neophyte I think the best lover is someone who can 'howl at the moon'. BB |
|
21 Jan 00 - 07:03 PM (#166383) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: katlaughing And did he sign a reciprocal agreement? |
|
21 Jan 00 - 07:39 PM (#166398) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Little Neophyte Okay, right kat The best love making is when we both find ourselves 'howling at the moon' How is that? BB |
|
21 Jan 00 - 07:57 PM (#166405) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: McGrath of Harlow Does that mean you like dancing with wolves, Bonnie? |
|
21 Jan 00 - 08:08 PM (#166410) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: GUEST,Neil Lowe ...which reminds me of my favorite line out of that movie: the gallows humor proffered by the mule skinner when they were contemplating the remains of the dead soldier: "Now somebody back home is saying, 'Why don't he write?'" That line alone was worth the ticket price. Neil |
|
21 Jan 00 - 08:14 PM (#166413) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: McGrath of Harlow I didn't mean the movie |
|
21 Jan 00 - 08:23 PM (#166419) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: GUEST,Neil Lowe I know...I live vicariously through the cinema. Everything reminds me of a movie. |
|
21 Jan 00 - 08:40 PM (#166426) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Little Neophyte McGrath, you know I actually did dance once with a big bad wolf. I'm finally learning to see through the disguise. Neil, that was a very funny line. I liked the scene where the chief is trying to go to sleep, feels something odd in the bed and pulls out one of his kid's Barbie type native dolls. BB
|
|
22 Jan 00 - 12:43 AM (#166552) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: JenEllen Peter: It does take a thousand times more intelligence to make love rather than war. The delicate balance required to maintain peace with someone who knows your innermost is a life-time of peace treaties. Who but your love is the most heinous of potential enemies? |
|
22 Jan 00 - 12:51 AM (#166556) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Brendy Nice one Jen. A thought for the day in itself. |
|
22 Jan 00 - 12:59 AM (#166560) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Lin in Kansas ...and it works the other way, too--who but your love is the most comforting of good friends? JL (happily married for many years and still lovin' it) |
|
22 Jan 00 - 02:44 AM (#166578) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Lonesome EJ Imagine how bored McClellan's wife must have been. "Oh, for God's sakes, George! Will you please just make a stand!" |
|
22 Jan 00 - 04:35 PM (#166823) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Ringer Sorry for the delay, Peter: I signed off and went home immediately after my posting above; back at "work" now (sitting in my office, at least: not sure that Mudcat really qualifies as work) whilst waiting to chauffeur my daughter home from a party. It's just gone 9pm here now. When I look back at what I said then I do question my own judgement in having posted what looks like a querulous and ungracious sentence. Please put it down to 6.30pm on Friday evening after a long week. Nevertheless, although I may have made a mistake in actually posting, the posted sentiments are mine and (rereading after a day) are still mine. You seek clarification (that cool, dry "In what way?" was delightful) but I can't believe it's not obvious (am I missing an in joke or something?). OK: we have a lady making comparisons between making love and commanding an army. Let's look at them one at a time. The lady is notorious for her infidelity and the number of her couplings. It is evident that she knows nothing of love, but only of sex for which she uses the euphemism "making love". And, from the number of her different partners, she evidently finds it easy to "make love"... not much intelligence required there. What does she know of commanding armies? I guess that some of her couplings were with Generals (is that a rank in the French army?), and I suggest that she has drawn the general (no pun intended) conclusion from the pillow-talk of infatuated rutting soldiers and the ingratiating small-talk of would-be rutting soldiers, all probably well lubricated with wine, that all commanders of armies are idiots. But, of course, what a man says as he pursues a sexual prize and, later, in coitus, is no predictor of how he will command an army. When I read what I've just written, I realise that I sound pompous (but then, I'm afraid I am a bit pompous). To precis my argument less pompously, she is talking tripe about subjects she knows nothing about. Will that do? By the way...um...is that the way you spell hundred where you come from? *BG* |
|
22 Jan 00 - 05:22 PM (#166843) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: katlaughing On the other hand, from a woman's point of view, perhaps she was speaking only of La Châtre? Maybe he was a great lover & she thought his talents wasted on the battlefield? Or, perhaps she took a dim view of any warmaking, which takes so much life, and wanted him to only partake of the life-giving which can come from love-making, which isn't necesarily always an euphemism? The women were always left behind to cope with everything, every aspect of daily life. If a woman felt that it took more intelligence to do thus, why shouldn't she declare so and brag to or of her lover, perhaps in an attempt to delay or stop his leaving for what she might think was futile/puerile reasons? Just some thoughts. Here's a somewhat related quote: Making peace is harder than making war.
|
|
22 Jan 00 - 05:45 PM (#166862) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: Peter T. No, no, Bald Eagle, this is a subject designed for pomposity! As in a French salon, the important thing is to make ridiculous sweeping statements, and then back them up with judicious (if not lubricious) evidence, and bat it back and forth. We lack only a fine Bordeaux. I agree with the lady, if not her morals. On your own terms, if she is handling many lovers, surely that requires a certain amount of logistical skill over bumpy terrain, marshalling your soldiers in a certain order, etc. I am sure that her version of "making love" is far more about the manoeuvering and plotting and determining the weak and strong points of the enemy, etc. than kat's more benign "life-making". Her skills at that would be far above the capacity of any mere Anglo-Saxon (I am Anglo-Saxon) to comprehend. I assume that she combined within herself the tactical skill of Marlborough, the panache of Nelson, and the effortless surprises of Robert E. Lee, as does any ordinary Frenchwoman of my previous acquaintance. So I heartily agree that she would have seen through any loutish general: but would not it be true of all generals, less or great, sexually aroused or not? Has any general ever outwitted a lady on the ground of her own choosing? The ordinary Frenchwoman at work is awe-inspiring: not unlike the young Napoleon, but with far more artillery at her command. yours, Peter T. P.S. sorry about hundred. Alwas profreed. |
|
22 Jan 00 - 05:48 PM (#166867) Subject: RE: Thought for the Day - Jan 21 From: katlaughing Peter, I think I must've been her in a past life.**BG** |