The Giver revealed...

[The Giver]

'tis I my friends, flagreen. I first created The Giver to be free to express some very strong opinions I held regarding 9-11 and the subsequent multitude of posts on the subject at SR. I did this to avoid straining friendships I had at the time. Things rapidly grew out of control and "The Giver" took on a life of his own so to speak.

Other than a few initial posts regarding policy here at SF, I have refrained from posting as The Giver here on this site so as not to needlessly bother others and out of respect for the rules. However, the cat was recently let out of the bag and so I am 'fessing up now so that others will not be put in a difficult position of having to expose me.

So there you have it....

[flagreen]

'tis I my friends, flagreen. I first created The Giver to be free to express some very strong opinions I held regarding 9-11 and the subsequent multitude of posts on the subject at SR. I did this to avoid straining friendships I had at the time. Things rapidly grew out of control and "The Giver" took on a life of his own so to speak.

Other than a few initial posts regarding policy here at SF, I have refrained from posting as The Giver here on this site so as not to needlessly bother others and out of respect for the rules. However, the cat was recently let out of the bag and so I am 'fessing up now so that others will not be put in a difficult position of having to expose me.

So there you have it....
'tis true, just confirming for any doubters out there.

[Prof.Wizard]

So get your ass crunching at UD think, flagreen. :wink:

(I want one result and then I'll stop bugging you. Promise. And if you want to retire feel free to it. But one result for the love of god.)

[Koggit]

I guess its only been a matter of time before you were caught. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.

[CougTek]

No more Giver fun, sad.

[Bartender]

Alas, my bar will never be the same.

[DrunkenBastard]

Bottoms up lads. Golden Cadillacs all round. woo the room is spinnig

[The Giver]

So get your ass crunching at UD think, flagreen. :wink:

(I want one result and then I'll stop bugging you. Promise. And if you want to retire feel free to it. But one result for the love of god.)
UD doesn't mix well with Intel cpus does it?

[CougTek]

UD doesn't mix well with Intel cpus does it?
And anyway, StorageForum.net has a Folding@home team, not an UD team. We don't promote our F@h team on SR, so don't bother us (not talking to you Bill) with UD spamming.

[Mercutio]

The Giver said some things to various people here such that if Bill wanted to continue to say, I felt he should at least be honest enough to live one life or the other.

Given my real-world situation, it was something I just didn't want to let stand.

[The Giver]

Well you are entitled to your opinion Merc. And I do understand that given your current difficulties make this perhaps more unpleasant for you than it is for others. I will accept the admin group's decision on whether I stay or not but certainly will not leave or drop either persona based on your opinion alone.

And let's remember that I am both flagreen and The Giver. One cannot be separated from the other. Furthermore, neither persona ever violated the rules such that either was banned from the site.

Dishonest is a rather strong word. Particularly when you consider that many use more than one persona here at SF. The only difference being that you do not find them offensive.

Though I haven't mentioned it thus far, perhaps it's time now to discuss why you felt it necessary to check my IPs. You mentioned that you had "nothing better to do" when you did so. Yet The Giver had not violated any rules here at SF nor had flagreen. What justification then do you have for having done so? I have not checked yours. Tony who has had the ability to check for quite some time now never found it necessary to violate my privacy. So why did you?

[Koggit]

I think its sucks (and I might be being nieve...again) that you had to come up with alias to express some, SOME of your true opinions for fear of friendships.

[Cliptin]

The Giver said some things to various people here such that if Bill wanted to continue to say, I felt he should at least be honest enough to live one life or the other.

Given my real-world situation, it was something I just didn't want to let stand.

It seems that absolute power does corrupt absolutely.

[Cliptin]

I think its sucks (and I might be being nieve...again) that you had to come up with alias to express some, SOME of your true opinions for fear of friendships.

I agree, I am personally disappointed flagreen felt this was necessary. I do not think it was.

[Cliptin]

The Giver said some things to various people here such that if Bill wanted to continue to say, I felt he should at least be honest enough to live one life or the other.

Given my real-world situation, it was something I just didn't want to let stand.

Speak up! Which posts are you referring to? I have read all of The Giver's posts on this forum and none are even mildly offensive save one. And that was to only one nick.

I find this breach of privacy a very serious problem. Merc, you were granted powers based on trust. You have broken that trust.

With a heavy heart, I move that Merc be removed as a moderator.

I am just as sad as I am fricken pissed.

[flagreen]

Clipton and Koggit,

Here's the thing... first of all you have to remember that The Giver arrived before there was a StorageForum.net and shortly after the 9-11 attack on the WTC. In the aftermath of that attack, the number of folks in the Bar and Grille who were defending America within the various threads on the subject were far and few between other than those who would on occasion drop into a thread to say "Nuke the Bastards!". In short, those who shared my opinion's on the subject and were willing to hang in there and fight were very few. Personally I don't believe it was because such folks were not out there, but rather it was a situation where many of them were intimidated by the vast numbers of those who held opinions contrary to mine and theirs. Either that or they just didn't care enough to say anything.

Most of those with whom I disagreed were friends of mine who aside from this one subject I had no problem with. But I just could not sit back and say nothing about the subject, after all it was as much my forum as it was theirs. I needed an edge which would free me to say that which the constraints of friendship would not allow. Not that they, come to think of it, ever seemed to be concerned with how Americans felt about the things they were saying about the USA or how that would effect my friendship with them. Anyway, The Giver gave me that freedom.

It's very easy to say it wasn't necessary, but it's a different matter entirely when you find yourself actually having to end friendships based on one fundamental difference of opinion. Would I do it again? I honestly don't know.

[Prof.Wizard]

We don't promote our F@h team on SR
It would sound funny (and even disturbing for some), taking into consideration this forum's origin.

so don't bother us (not talking to you Bill) with UD spamming.
Oh com'n! What UD spamming? The post wasn't intended for anyone else. Just The Giver. And just for the first result he brings in.

I just don't like the "----------" lines in the think statistics, that's all.

[Mercutio]

My hope was that the Giver was a distinct entity, Bill. That is something I had been convinced of up to the point I actually looked.

For those who do not know, one of the powers moderators have is to check IP addresses. I obviously didn't widely distribute what I learned from that particularl IP check (the only other one I have do is on myself), only gave my personal opinion to Bill (an opinion that, yes, is very much shaped by the world I'm living in right now). What Bill chose to do after I stated my opinion privately was his decision.

Cliptin, perhaps a better way to phrase my comment, above, is that the Giver has said some things in posts on SR to people who are here on SF that I felt should have at least carried the weight of Bill's voice. James and Tannin both did quite a bit of sparring with him, after all.

Many of those who took up the argument post 9/11 did so in their own voice. I certainly did. Some of those voices carry considerable weight. Yours would have, too.

[flagreen]

That certainly satisfies me Mercutio and ends the IP thing as issue as far as I am concerned.

Thanks,
Bill

[Prof.Wizard]

Hey, I wanna be a moderator too. :x

[CougTek]

Hey, I wanna be a moderator too. :x
ROFL

Dream on.

[flagreen]

Prof,

Study hard at school and behave yourself. Some day who knows? You just might be called upon to yield the mighty hatchet my friend. :)

[Prof.Wizard]

What makes you think you're better, CouchTest?
Your Avatar?! :lol:

[flagreen]

Speaking of Avitars, here's a new one for you Prof. so you can get rid of whatever that is you are using now. It's just how I picture you! :)

http://home1.gte.net/res0hopz/ponch.jpg

[Prof.Wizard]

LOL :lol: :lol:
(you're close... :P)

[Tea]

Well, Prof, you might just get your wish. :) There is a fresh appointment for a moderator's position coming up. I'll be posting in the Feedback forum to ask for nominations within the next day or two.

[Tea]

Tannin! What the hell are you doing posting under my nic?

[Tannin]

Oh. Sorry Tea. Slip of the brain. I will be calling for nominations, of course. I don't think imaginary people are allowed.

[Prof.Wizard]

I was kidding about the moderator thing.
Thank you Tannin, but I'm not interested.

However, don't you think there are too many moderators in these forums? I mean, we are less than 100 guys really, and lot less if you count those who post regularly (once in a couple of days)... How many moderators are now in? 4-5? On 10-20 guys (em, personas frankly) that post?!

Or make everyone a moderator or let's not have moderators at all (apart Doug who runs the place afterall) and be responsible for ourselves and what we post...

[Tea]

This was a matter that was delegated to the moderation and conduct commitee, Prof. The five mod scheme was the one that they came up with, so that's the one that was implemented. Personally, I thought that five was maybe two too many, but I don't think it much matters either way. Presumably this is something that will be reviewed when the current mods' terms expire. Perhaps by then it will be needed. Perhaps not.

Next year's troubles: I'll start worrying about them next year.

[Mercutio]

My belief was that three would be sufficient as well. The counter argument to that was that, with five mods there would be "more coverage"; the "Many Hands Make Short Work" philosophy. I think 'round the clock coverage is a rough goal. In any case our next moderator should probably be someone outside the US, just in case the evil James starts posting more links to warez sites while Bill and I are asleep. :)

Roughly, our list of users grows by about 10 per month. Many of those tend to be new aliases for Gary H. but moderators are being added in a staggered fashion to keep up with growth of the site. Five initial moderators for 100-something users would've been overkill. We're easing into it and hoping traffic on the site ultimately justifies the number.

[Prof.Wizard]

I agree.
But how are mods chosen? Did I miss a voting session?!
(Frankly, I don't remember one...)

[jtr1962]

In the aftermath of that attack, the number of folks in the Bar and Grille who were defending America within the various threads on the subject were far and few between other than those who would on occasion drop into a thread to say "Nuke the Bastards!". In short, those who shared my opinion's on the subject and were willing to hang in there and fight were very few. Personally I don't believe it was because such folks were not out there, but rather it was a situation where many of them were intimidated by the vast numbers of those who held opinions contrary to mine and theirs. Either that or they just didn't care enough to say anything.


First of all, I'm really sorry to hear that The Giver was not a real person. You had me and just about everyone else fooled, and despite his occasional abrasiveness, I really did enjoy having The Giver around. I have to give you credit for pulling this hoax off for as long as you did. You wouldn't by any chance happen to be The Taker and Iron Mike Tyson as well, would you? :lol:

Second, I think you are mistaken about the number of people willing to defend America post 9/11. I was there quite often(it was my city they attacked, after all), as was Jason, supercaffeinated, Jack Roberts, and probably a few others whose names escape me at the moment(I'm too lazy to start rereading my saved threads). To be sure, many of our posts were of the "nuke the bastards" variety, but I also remember writing quite a bit defending the invasion, torturing of suspects to gain information, having summary executions instead of holding trials, etc. Since I only had 30 or so posts pre 9/11, I really had no reputation to worry about, so I just posted my opinion and didn't care. It would have been nice if more of the fixtures like yourself freely expressed their opinions without worrying about the consequences, but I do understand where you're coming from by creating The Giver for that purpose. In my opinion, as long as you have a rational, logical train of thought rather than an emotional one, your opinions would have stood on their own merits even if many other regulars disagreed with them.

To this day, I still don't no if not making an example of Afghanistan will eventually result in our eventual destruction, but only time will tell. I personally feel eventually terrorists will acquire and use nuclear weapons with devastating consequences. I just don't know whether or not wiping a bunch of countries who represent the primary threats to our safety off the map would prevent that. If so, you are trading one set of lives for another. If not, it is needless, senseless slaughter. BTW, I'm not condoning such actions at this time, even though I did post 9/11. I'm merely saying that they should always be on the table if we are ever attacked again. Indeed, in the event of nuclear terrorism, most of the American public would be demanding a like response, so in such a situation I just don't see how our leaders would be able to avoid it. In the end, I know violence solves nothing, but once one side resorts to using it there are only two choices-fight back or die. It works against 1 billion years of evolution to do the latter, so most people choose the former.

[flagreen]

First of all, I'm really sorry to hear that The Giver was not a real person. You had me and just about everyone else fooled, and despite his occasional abrasiveness, I really did enjoy having The Giver around. I have to give you credit for pulling this hoax off for as long as you did. You wouldn't by any chance happen to be The Taker and Iron Mike Tyson as well, would you?
Thanks. Iron Mike Tyson - Yes. The Faker - No.

And there are others as well :)

The Giver's not going anywhere. In fact at this point, if I had to choose between the two - I'd choose The Giver. So there is more fun yet to come. The Giver is a real person save for the details. His opinions reflect mine precisely.

As you may know, several of our founding fathers used pseudonyms when debating political issues in public (in newspapers then). This was true of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc. They did so for similar reasons to mine, that is they chose to remain anonymous so as to be free to say what they wished to. I dare not compare myself to them and hesitate even bringing up their names in connection with anything to do with me whatsoever. But never the less this is true.

[Handruin]

Ok, ok I admit, I was The Taker. I had some frustrations with The Giver, and then said to myself, what the hell, it's an online community, why do I bother getting frustrated? So I had a little fun with it.

[Koggit]

geeze this is like a soap opera :lol: :rofl:

[Stereodude]

geeze this is like a soap opera :lol: :rofl:
Indeed before we know it everyone's going to "come out of the closet" and we're going to find out that between all the active usernames there are only 12 people or so. I only have 1 name here and post SR meltdown I only have 1 there. So, you don't have to worry about me stepping out of any closets. :P

Stereodude

[Handruin]

I only used The Taker a few times on SR. I made the name because it provided humor to myself.

Here I have 2 other names here (Doug and Monkey-C) both get little to no use. I use them for testing the forum from time to time.

[adriel]

The "defending America"/"attacking America" frame of mind is too limited to describe the more complex opinions expressed on the old SR forum.

I thought The Giver was an alienated teenager geek. So I tried to be nice to him.

[adriel]

Didn't The Giver express Communist views though, or something like that?

[adriel]

In any case, from what you've releaved through The Giver, we know that you are a French African-American with a Haitian background. Unless The Giver has lied about that.

[CougTek]

In any case, from what you've releaved through The Giver, we know that you are a French African-American with a Haitian background. Unless The Giver has lied about that.
Somehow, I don't imagine Bill as an Afro-American. Good thing if he his (it would enlarge our ethnical background), but I just don't see him that way. And if Bill has French-speaking origins, well I think they are very far away.

[The Giver]

In any case, from what you've releaved through The Giver, we know that you are a French African-American with a Haitian background. Unless The Giver has lied about that.
Oh yeah, you have him pegged alright. That's him to a tee. A French African-American of Haitian descent. His father (may he rest in peace) was Papa Doc Duvalier and his mother Bridget Bardot. He emigrated to the US after escaping torture at the hands of the Tonton Macoute following the rise to power of his brother, Baby Doc Duvalier. His brother you see never got over the fact that Mom liked him best.

[The Giver]

Didn't The Giver express Communist views though, or something like that?
Go wash your mouth out with soap young man! 8)

[flagreen]

Adreil,

Creating fictional characters is not lying any more than writing characters in a novel is lying, or acting a part in a play is lying. If you stop to consider the "quirkiness" of The Giver I think you'll agree that he was written this way (speaking in the third person, rude to the extreme, etc.) so that one would have no problem seeing that he was fictional. His beliefs parallel mine but that is all he and I truly have in common. If you ask a fictional character a question about himself, you will get a fictional answer. Unlike other pseudonyms used around here, The Giver's agenda is not to amuse. And therein lays the difference. His agenda is quite different. More on that later..

[Cliptin]

The Giver's agenda is not to amuse.

Must be an unintended side effect.

[timwhit]

So did anyone have a clue that The Giver was really Bill until very recently???

I surely didn't, I thought he was real.

[Mercutio]

So did I.

[James]

The funny thing is that I still have a hard time extracting what Bill/The Giver's opinions actually are. :)

[Bartender]

Great gobs of goose eggs, there sure are a lot of phonies around here.

[Onomatopoeic]

Jeez, I guess I've been out of it for awhile now as I really don't recall "The Giver" here or back on the old S.R.

[The Giver]

What? You know not The Giver? Where have you been my good man?

[The Giver]

The funny thing is that I still have a hard time extracting what Bill/The Giver's opinions actually are. :)
Who is Bill?

[Jake the Dog]

well at least we know now.

shame that flagreen had to resort to an alias so he felt he could put forward his views and opinions. i would thought most of us at SR would have deserved a little more credit when it comes to respecting other’s people’s right to have their say.

[The Giver]

Oh they grant the right to speak well enough. You must of misunderstood the reasoning put forth by flagreen.

[Jake the Dog]

"I needed an edge which would free me to say..."

[flagreen]

I needed an edge which would free me to say that which the constraints of friendship would not allow.

It is difficult for one friend to tell another that he is full of shit and so are his fellow countrymen without the friendship suffering as a result. Even though he is free to say to so if he wishes. Perhaps you and I differ, but it would be easier for me to hear that from a stranger than from a friend.

[The Giver]

I needed an edge which would free me to say that which the constraints of friendship would not allow.

It is difficult for one friend to tell another that he is full of shit and so are his fellow countrymen without the friendship suffering as a result. Even though he is free to say to so if he wishes. Perhaps you and I differ, but it would be easier for me to hear that from a stranger than from a friend.
And furthermore, The Giver would rather tell them anyway.

[Jake the Dog]

hmmm, interesting and i can see your point i guess, although i could never have seen it without your explanation since the way i work is that i could only accept hearing i was full of shit from a friend. they are the wones who know me and they respect me enough to only say it when it's quite [possibly true. hearing from a stranger would only serve to incense me. the way i see it. a stranger does not know enough about me to judge whether i'm full of shit.

[James]

It is difficult for one friend to tell another that he is full of shit and so are his fellow countrymen without the friendship suffering as a result. Even though he is free to say to so if he wishes. Perhaps you and I differ, but it would be easier for me to hear that from a stranger than from a friend.
I don't mind it coming from a friend. I'd object to a friend of mine lumping all of my countrymen in indiscriminately with me though - it seems unfair on both my countrymen and I. :)

[GIANT]

What? You know not The Giver? Where have you been my good man?

Er.... probably in classes at the uni, or at work, or maybe busy at home, or maybe stuck in freeway traffic, or maybe -- like yo -- trying to kindle a burgeoning career in rap. But, then, what the hell is The_Giver s'posed to be, sort of a The Giver antichrist ? :idea:

[James]

The other thought I had is that by taking on another persona to argue with people, you were allowing yourself to criticise and insult others while insulating yourself from any possible backlash. In other words, you're abdicating some of the responsibility for your own opinions and the expression thereof, while denying others the same lack of responsibility.

[Jake the Dog]

wones????? i've never until now realised that i type phonetically...

i have to learn read the priview too. i make the most pathetic spelling mistakes when i post here or on SR. why is that?

[GIANT]

wones????? i've never until now realised that i type phonetically...

i have to learn read the priview too. i make the most pathetic spelling mistakes when i post here or on SR. why is that?

Cuz yer uh DAWG! http://www.storageforum.net/phpBB2/images/avatars/gallery/users/46.jpg arf! arf!

[Jake the Dog]

that would explain my paw spelling too.

[Dr. Willy]

Herr Jake The Dog has a very interesting nick. I'm thinking to code-name one of my latest designs with this alias.

[flagreen]

It is difficult for one friend to tell another that he is full of shit and so are his fellow countrymen without the friendship suffering as a result. Even though he is free to say to so if he wishes. Perhaps you and I differ, but it would be easier for me to hear that from a stranger than from a friend.
I don't mind it coming from a friend. I'd object to a friend of mine lumping all of my countrymen in indiscriminately with me though - it seems unfair on both my countrymen and I. :)
This is done all the time at SR by some of those critical of the US. You see; every time someone is critical of the US in a foul mouthed, or mean spirited, ill informed, unfair, or ill timed manner such as when she has suffered a great loss they do exactly the same thing in my opinion. So I got fed up with it and decided to fight fire with fire.

But it really doesn't matter any more since you folks know who The Giver is now anyway. Nor apparently did it ever matter since few if any of you foreign nationals ever stopped to consider that your American friends might be offended at the time by your criticism of the US whether it was valid or not. The last thing someone wants to hear when a friend has just died is what a miserable person they were, even if that's true. Many at SR in fact seemed gleeful at the opportunity to pile on. Even some Americans! And I don't need "friends" like that anyway. Indeed, perhaps they were never friends at all.

[flagreen]

The other thought I had is that by taking on another persona to argue with people, you were allowing yourself to criticise and insult others while insulating yourself from any possible backlash. In other words, you're abdicating some of the responsibility for your own opinions and the expression thereof, while denying others the same lack of responsibility.
Well that's a rather cynical way of looking at it in my opinion. But you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine I suppose. I will say that The Giver took as much abuse over at SR as he gave. Oh and "any possible backlash"? Do you not realise by now that when one strikes out at the US he strikes out at both flagreen and The Giver? That when you insult The Giver you also insult flagreen? Please...

[Prof.Wizard]

I agree with flagreen. People look you strange when you're frank. Sometimes it's good insulating behind another persona. Especially if you're getting into serious debates, as The Giver was getting into...

[jtr1962]

Boy, am I glad I don't suffer from multiple personality disorder :( :) :D :mrgrn: :x :evil: :wink: :roll: like many of the regulars here seem to.

Umm, I have a confession to make. I'm also really flagreen, Tony Wilson, Gary Hendershot, Mercutio, James, and most of the other regulars here. And all along you thought that we were actually have real conversations when it was really just my 101 personalities conversing among themselves. :lol:

[Prof.Wizard]

Actually, how do I know all the members in these darn forums aren't distorted personalities of Handruin?! :eekers:

[Tannin]

A friend, Flagreen, is someone who has the moral courage to tell you the truth, even if it hurts. As the father of your child, and as the child of your father, you must have learned that for yourself long since.

[flagreen]

A friend, Flagreen, is someone who has the moral courage to tell you the truth, even if it hurts. As the father of your child, and as the child of your father, you must have learned that for yourself long since.
Certainly that is true. However context is the key here. We are not talking about telling a friend that he has a body odor problem, or a son that he has made a grave error.

We are talking about politics and international relations.

A friend, a father, does as you suggest only when it is necessary. And he only does so with compassion, because he cares. A friend, or a father, never does it just for the sake of being critical. Are we not all tolerant of some of our friends shortcomings? Do we not all frequently overlook some things rather than always being brutally honest with those we care about? Is that not what a friend is as well?

[Handruin]

Actually, how do I know all the members in these darn forums aren't distorted personalities of Handruin?! :eekers:

You, may never know... :bravo:

[Tannin]

Just so, Bill.

[Cliptin]

Do we not all frequently overlook some things rather than always being brutally honest with those we care about? Is that not what a friend is as well?

This must be why I have no friends and must commune with birds and stumps.

[Prof.Wizard]

A friend, Flagreen, is someone who has the moral courage to tell you the truth, even if it hurts. As the father of your child, and as the child of your father, you must have learned that for yourself long since.
I think you exaggerate here, pal.
If I wanted (and had time) to immerse myself in the SR's pub discussions, I would have certainly created another persona. As flagreen did.

It's not about sincerity my friend. Sincerity exists; flagreen could have gone on and bury The Giver's character. Nonetheless he revealed him to us.

I could have lived without knowing it and I'm not so emotionally upset now that I know who he is... AFAIR I've never engaged him in a thread afterall... and that's a fact

So what would I do (if ever)?
I would still keep Prof.Wizard and steer him with my real reactions, cause this Wizard you see is the real Constantine, the real me... but I would definitely have created another dude (presumably with a rather catchy name :wink: ) for the flak* (political, ideological, religious ideas)...

If not, people after a while don't respond you even the computer-related threads... (see :right: Trinton Azaleth)

PS*. This may sound oxymoron, but all of us have ideas that we present always under a certain "shell" to avoid offending someone.
PPS. Now that I think it, Tea is much more easy-going in respect to that pain in the ass Tannin... :P

[monkey-C]

And BTW, I am Prof.Wizard. How's that for confusing personalities.

[Mercutio]

Not all of us. I make every effort to be genuine with everyone. Many people find that off-putting.

But I'm pretty sure I'm real and not a figment (a better phrase than sock puppet for the rest of the schizophrenics here) of jtr. Although if I am a figment I could use some creative re-writes right now.

[Bartender]

Sorry Merc, you're real. But the nice thing about being real is that when life is good, you get to enjoy it with all of your senses (or so I've been told).

[flagreen]

Not all of us. I make every effort to be genuine with everyone. Many people find that off-putting.

But I'm pretty sure I'm real and not a figment (a better phrase than sock puppet for the rest of the schizophrenics here) of jtr. Although if I am a figment I could use some creative re-writes right now.
Oh so Mercutio is your real name?

[Mercutio]

My real name is Sam. The result of a family tradition, there are six or seven "Sams" in my family already so through my life I've mostly been known by nicknames. The nickname I like best is the one I selected for myself.

Besides, it's probably a bit more appropriate here than the ones others have given.

[James]

I'm with Merc on this one, although I don't even use a nickname on these forums.

By taking this conversation into the realm of parents and children, that's an area I'm not personally qualified to talk about because I haven't thought about how I would raise any children I might have. The way my parents raised me has biased my views in a particular direction and inevitably it probably went a long way to making me the way that I am.

I honestly believe that when someone shows me I'm wrong, I gracefully accept that - if we had the couple thousand posts at SR of mine to look at I am sure I'd be able to point out many places that I have been wrong and happy to apologise at the time.

So that we've got everything out in the open here, I certainly accept that 11/9 was an enormous tragedy, and I believe I said so at the time on several occasions. I lost someone very dear to me at the WTC, in one of the aircraft, and I know hundreds of thousands of people were similarly personally affected by what happened.

For me though I suppose I look at the actual events and the causes of events as being (kind of) two seperate things - blame my education and upbringing, I guess. There is the direct effect and human tragedy of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, which for me and many others is (still) very emotional. Behind that is (again for me) a more dispassionate debate around why things happened, the history, economics, religions and politics that eventually the event to occur. Again, I can completely understand that may not be the way that other people look at things, and I am very sorry if anyone somehow interpreted anything I said as being callous or diminishing the enormous shock, distress and horror that 11/9 caused so many people (including me), that was never my intent.

I could never gather up a group of people - except pedophiles, rapists, people who torture others - people like that - slap a collective term on them (Americans, Australians, the inner-city chardonnay set, ladies who lunch...) and say I dislike (or like) that group - for me there's too much individuality and I have to take things on a more one-by-one basis. It angers me when people say for example that "Australians don't like Americans" or "Americans are ignorant" etc. because sure, there are a set of national policies and a persona put out by the government of the day, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees or aligns with them - then or now. Perhaps there are indeed people who are completely aligned with that view, but there are many who aren't. Countries are necessarily made up of individuals. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see a gap between the majority view or collective stereotype of the people of a country and the policies their government puts in place. Sometimes that gap is bigger or smaller - depending on the individual, the policy, or whatever - and indeed the study of that gap is something historians invest a lot of time in.

Anyway, I've said my bit here. I think for me this event (Bill feeling he can't express his views openly) has disappointed me - both in others and myself. I'm sure we'll all get over it sooner or later.

[Prof.Wizard]

Trinton was genuine too...

[Prof.Wizard]

Well, the big bang would be if one day EBB reveals to us that HE was Trinton... :o

THAT WOULD BE A S-H-O-C-K!!! :mrgrn:

Suspicious fact: both from Baltimore...

[adriel]

So they're both from Baltimore. That explains it then. It's pretty damning evidence. But I'm not convinced that EBB knows he is Trinton Azaleth. If EBB doesn't know he is Trinton, he can't reveal it to us. No matter, we know now.

[jtr1962]

So that we've got everything out in the open here, I certainly accept that 11/9 was an enormous tragedy, and I believe I said so at the time on several occasions. I lost someone very dear to me at the WTC, in one of the aircraft, and I know hundreds of thousands of people were similarly personally affected by what happened.


Indeed it was. Besides the one person I personally knew, a friend of mine knew someone, and one of my mother's friends also knew someone. Although I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to back me up, I would venture to guess that most of the people in NYC either had a friend who lost someone, or actually knew someone personally. Anyway, please accept my belated condolences on behalf of your lost friend, as well as all those who died that neither of us knew.



There is the direct effect and human tragedy of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, which for me and many others is (still) very emotional. Behind that is (again for me) a more dispassionate debate around why things happened, the history, economics, religions and politics that eventually the event to occur. Again, I can completely understand that may not be the way that other people look at things, and I am very sorry if anyone somehow interpreted anything I said as being callous or diminishing the enormous shock, distress and horror that 11/9 caused so many people (including me), that was never my intent.


James, although I can only speak for myself personally, I never really saw you as being callous regarding 11/9(I'll use 11/9 in this post instead of 9/11 to be consistent with you). There were a number of others on SR far worse, the group that I called the "Blame America First" crowd, and you were not one of them. It is important to be able to dispassionately analyze something as tragic as this event, if for no other reason than to try to take steps to prevent it from occurring again. Perhaps you did so when the pain of the event was still raw for many, and maybe should have waited a bit, but there was really nothing wrong with what you did from my perspective. And you did open my eyes a bit to the suffering that our bombing inflicted on the civilians in Afghanistan, although to this day I honesty don't know if the Taliban would have killed just as many had they been left in power.

What bothered me were those who said that America had it coming, and who lumped the American people with the American government. I personally loathe a great deal of what the American government and American business stands for, but since all I can currently do is elect people from one of two major parties to office, there is little I can do to change things. For that reason, I considered it illogical when some people tried to blame me for the actions of my government. The truth is that even in a democratic society, what the people want and what the government does are two different things. There is also the issue of the American media reporting very little of what goes on elsewhere in the world to the general public. It is difficult for Americans to care about or influence foreign policy when they aren't informed about it. I thought 11/9 would change things with the media, but it seems that celebrity gossip is once again the usual front page news.

I would say that if anything bothers me now about 11/9, it is people who are using the word "closure". The simple fact is that for many people, there will never be any closure, and those who say otherwise are being callous. Over half of those who lost someone have not had any part of them recovered. At best, these people will learn to live with their loss, but they will never "get over it" as many insensitive fools keep wishing them to do. What happened was far different than either dying of old age, or after a long fight with an illness. Huge numbers of people in the prime of their lives had their lives suddenly cut short by a brutal, senseless act. Even the actual manner in which these people died(generally by either burning or being cut to shreds) was horrible, and it is those insensitive morons who minimize this that annoy me more than anything. As for myself, I've come to terms with the event, but it'll remain a part of who I am for as long as I live. I'll probably think about it every time I hear an airplane engine overhead.




Anyway, I've said my bit here. I think for me this event (Bill feeling he can't express his views openly) has disappointed me - both in others and myself. I'm sure we'll all get over it sooner or later.


I'm always disappointed when people can't honestly be who they are, but I've come to expect it. Indeed, I don't think society could function without the little white lies that people resort to all the time.

[flagreen]

For the record - I never had any problem whatsoever with James. He should be a Diplomat like his Father. The only reason The Giver had any interaction with him was to stay in character when responding to him or when The Giver was already logged in. James had the misfortune of joining some threads in which The Giver was already off and running, that is already debating others.

[Jake the Dog]

the issue i had with some americans is that they could not at all accept that the arab anti-american rage might in part be a result of american foreign policy. i may or may not be correct in my belief but the point blank refusal by some americans to even consider that that could a possibilty is what got me involved in some of those discussion. i just find it frustrating to converse with people who won't consider all the possibilities of why such an event occurred. i have no personal issues with any of you and yes i can come across so i would understand if you have a problem with me.

[flagreen]

No doubt you are correct about the fact that they hate America because of her foreign Policy. However - Is what caused their anger relevant when their actions are inexcusable?

Because many can establish a "cause and effect" relationship between Muslim Rage and the WTC tragedy, they feel America is responsible for the event. And that is a leap in moral judgement of gigantic proportions. It is because the act itself was unjustifiable. For America to be in any way morally culpable (responsible) for an act, the act itself must first be morally justifiable.

And this "leap" of moral judgement was made by many people at SR. Many could not wait to blame America, to trash her by saying she deserved it. That she "had it coming". Frankly, they were despicable for saying so, in particular those Americans who said so are detestable imho. These SR members felt that because they disagreed with American policy in the region they could hold America responsible for the act, the very same way in which Al Qaeda does no doubt. And that, frankly, is simply horse shit. And neither flagreen or The Giver, shall ever relent against those who say such things.

[Jake the Dog]

aah but you see, Al Qaeda do think it was a morally justifiable act against a morally culpable enemy. my only point is, and always was, that some americans simply refuse to accept a possible cause for Arab rage is american foreign policy in the region of Arabs nations - and nothing more than that.

whether they were right or wrong was never my intention to discuss. i for one have never once felt america deserved such a horrendous attack but i must admit that a few days after the shock, i realised i was not at all surprised.

[flagreen]

aah but you see, Al Qaeda do think it was a morally justifiable act against a morally culpable enemy.
I fail to see the relevance of this.


my point is, and always was, that some americans simply refuse to accept a possible cause for Arab rage is american foreign policy in the region of Arabs nations - and nothing more than that.
Fair enough but I don't recall that I ever disagreed with this, nor that any other Americans did.

[Jake the Dog]

aah but you see, Al Qaeda do think it was a morally justifiable act against a morally culpable enemy.
I fail to see the relevance of this.


wow, i'm almost stunned. by considering Al Qaeda's reasoning completely irrelevant, you're choosing not understand why they chose to attack in such a large scale, vicious way? despite their actions being right or wrong, how can you choose to be ignorant of all the facts that lead to 11/9?

[flagreen]

What is unjustifiable is just that, unjustifiable. Nothing further need be said.

[Jake the Dog]

unjustifiable as it may be, ignoring the facts around the issue won't help you next time it happens though will it?

[flagreen]

aah but you see, Al Qaeda do think it was a morally justifiable act against a morally culpable enemy.
I fail to see the relevance of this.


wow, i'm almost stunned. by considering Al Qaeda's reasoning completely irrelevant, you're choosing not understand why they chose to attack in such a large scale, vicious way? despite their actions being right or wrong, how can you choose to be ignorant of all the facts that lead to 11/9?
Thou doth make a huge leap in reasoning my canine friend. We are not ignorant of all the facts. We understand why they did it. Your assumption that we do not wish to know, and that we are choosing not to understand, is incorrect.

Here's the thing - What is unjustifiable is unjustifiable. You cannot separate this definitive point from any discussion relating to the WTC attack.

Why one chooses to do an unjustifiable act is not relevant. Either what one has done is justified or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

[flagreen]

unjustifiable as it may be, ignoring the facts around the issue won't help you next time it happens though will it?
Who is ignoring the facts?

Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be hinting around at saying the US policy should be changed to appease these people to prevent further attacks. Is this what you feel we should do? I see no other reason why one would bring the WTC attack and US foreign policy together in the same discussion.

There are no mitigating facts to be taken in consideration when discussing the right and wrong of an act. Mitigating circumstances come into play once the "right or wrong" of an act has been determined. They are taken into consideration when deciding the consequences of, or the punishment for, having done "wrong". But to bring them into a discussion as to the "right or wrong" of the act itself, rather than at the appropriate time, is an to attempt to use those mitigating circumstances as justification. It is a common mistake many people in this country make as regards various criminal cases which find their way into the news here. These folks typically mistake an "excuse", for what is actually only an "explanation" for why one committed a crime. Mitigating circumstances do not excuse or justify one's crimes.

[Jake the Dog]

i don't think you realise that i'm not talking about justification, i'm talking about understanding. in regards to justification, i completely agree with you. i am of the opinion that the WTC attack was completely unjustified and considering i have tried to understand Al Qaeda's reasoning, i know i am making a relatively informed decision, based on all sides of the story and of course on the information i have access to.

i certainly don't see where i'm making a leap in reasoning. i'm simply concluding you are ignoring some facts from some of the comments you are making. here is why; you state you see no relevance in Al Qaeda's reasoning. this tells me you have no regard for learning all the facts. to consider all the facts must one not consider the opposing point of view as well? how can you do so if in this case, you're disregarding Al Qaeda's reasoning as irrelevant?


btw, is it not much easer to speak freely as you are as flagreen?


... to be continued i gather :P (and it's late i'm off to bed!)

[Jake the Dog]

ok, one more.



Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be hinting around at saying the US policy should be changed to appease these people to prevent further attacks. Is this what you feel we should do?

i don't know. have you considered that US foreign policy is perhaps wrong for people local to the Arab region? how fair is it to them? i don't know if this is true or not but i do know that it seems the attittude of many americans i have come across that they are blidnly refiusing to consider that could be the case. if it is the case, should the US not make changes?



I see no other reason why one would bring the WTC attack and US foreign policy together in the same discussion.

then you obvisouly are not aware of Al Qaeda issues with the US even though you think you are.




Mitigating circumstances do not excuse or justify one's crimes.

oh yes they certainly can. manslaughter in self-defence is one example of such an instance.

[flagreen]

i don't think you realise that i'm not talking about justification, i'm talking about understanding. in regards to justification, i completely agree with you. i am of the opinion that the WTC attack was completely unjustified and considering i have tried to understand Al Qaeda's reasoning, i know i am making a relatively informed decision, based on all sides of the story and of course on the information i have access to.
A "reletively informned decision" about what? Who is right and who is wrong? Isn't that what you are doing? I thought you had already done that when you came to the conclusion that the attack was not justified. I know I had done so. How can an act which is wrong ever be justified? It cannot be. Furthermore there are some acts, and I believe the WTC attack to be one of them, for which there is never any justification. Believing such, Al Qaeda's reasoning is indeed completely irrelevant.


i certainly don't see where i'm making a leap in reasoning. i'm simply concluding you are ignoring some facts from some of the comments you are making. here is why; you state you see no relevance in Al Qaeda's reasoning. this tells me you have no regard for learning all the facts. to consider all the facts must one not consider the opposing point of view as well? how can you do so if in this case, you're disregarding Al Qaeda's reasoning as irrelevant?
I made the statement because we had already agreed that Al Qaeda's actions were unjustified. Furthermore, there is nothing which could justify what was done on 9-11. Perhaps you disagree.

[Cliptin]

oh yes they certainly can. manslaughter in self-defence is one example of such an instance.

The person in question is guilty of murder. The mitigating circumstances of self-defence allows for commutation of legel sentence. It does not change the fact that they killed somebody.

[flagreen]

ok, one more.



Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be hinting around at saying the US policy should be changed to appease these people to prevent further attacks. Is this what you feel we should do?

i don't know. have you considered that US foreign policy is perhaps wrong for people local to the Arab region? how fair is it to them? i don't know if this is true or not but i do know that it seems the attittude of many americans i have come across that they are blidnly refiusing to consider that could be the case. if it is the case, should the US not make changes?
To make changes because the policy is wrong is one thing. To make changes because of an unjustifiable act such as the WTC attack is a completely different thing altogether. The latter is appeasement where as the former is justice. I thought we were talking about the WTC attack were we not?




I see no other reason why one would bring the WTC attack and US foreign policy together in the same discussion.


then you obviously are not aware of Al Qaeda issues with the US even though you think you are.
If you want to discuss foreign policy as regards the Arabs, do so separately from a discussion of the WTC attack. Because when you do include both within the same discussion it is only natural that people are going to feel that you are arguing for appeasement. Because the "effect" is unpleasant, is not always a reason to change the "cause".




Mitigating circumstances do not excuse or justify one's crimes.


oh yes they certainly can. manslaughter in self-defence is one example of such an instance.
There is no such crime known as "manslaughter in self-defence". Manslaughter is a crime. Justifiable homicide, such as the when killing in self-defence, is not. Furthermore, do not confuse the facts of, or the evidence presented, in a case with mitigating circumstances!

[Jake the Dog]

"...I thought you had already done that when you came to the conclusion that the attack was not justified."

"...I know I had done so. How can an act which is wrong ever be justified? It cannot be. Furthermore there are some acts, and I believe the WTC attack to be one of them, for which there is never any justification. Believing such, Al Qaeda's reasoning is indeed completely irrelevant."

"...I made the statement because we had already agreed that Al Qaeda's actions were unjustified. Furthermore, there is nothing which could justify what was done on 9-11. Perhaps you disagree."


bloody hell, how many times do i have to say it? are you not reading what i am saying?

again; I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT JUSTIFICATION. understanding of the reasoning of the events of 11/9 and having an opinion of the justification there of are two separate things. granted the former does usually follow the latter but it seems you can't separate the two in discussion where as i have.

[Jake the Dog]

To make changes because the policy is wrong is one thing. To make changes because of an unjustifiable act such as the WTC attack is a completely different thing altogether. The latter is appeasement where as the former is justice. I thought we were talking about the WTC attack were we not?

well no in fact. you brought it onto the attack on the WTC, i was talking about the disinterest of the many americans i have spoken to, to consider US foreign policy as a possibly contributor to the events that lead to 11/9.




I see no other reason why one would bring the WTC attack and US foreign policy together in the same discussion.



If you want to discuss foreign policy as regards the Arabs, do so separately from a discussion of the WTC attack. Because when you do include both within the same discussion it is only natural that people are going to feel that you are arguing for appeasement. Because the "effect" is unpleasant, is not always a reason to change the "cause".

indeed the two are stongly conencted. Al Qaeda attacked the WTC. OBL's edict is to strike against US in retaliation for Al Qaeda consider is unrighteous US foreign policy in the area that is the Arab region of our planet earth. are you suggesting i am arguing a change in the cause?

if you cannot bring the two together then i can only presume that:

A) you choose to be ignorant of the facts that lead to the event of 11/9
B) you believe the WTC attack happened for entirely different reasons that you have not mentioned
C) you believe the WTC attack happened for no reason at all.

am i missing something?

you may well believe i feel the US should adjust it's foreign policy to appease the Arab and Muslim communities and i get the feeling that regardless of what i say, you will believe what you want to believe, not what i am saying to you. i'll tell you what i think in any case. i think the US and it's citizens should look at why some Arab nations have such hatred fo the US and consider what it is that is causing it. if it's apparent that the policy is wrong, unfair, unrighteous, etc in someway to their culture, society or other, then yes, i beleive the US should adjust it's policy for two main reasons; 1) respect for rights to choose to live as they live and 2) self-defense.




There is no such crime known as "manslaughter in self-defence". Manslaughter is a crime. Justifiable homicide, such as the when killing in self-defence, is not.

sorry i did not make myself clear. there is no crime called "manslaughter in self-defense". what i meant was manslaughter can become justifiable homicide in a case where the mitigating circumstances are self defense.

[Jake the Dog]

granted the former does usually follow the latter.

woops, i meant the latter does usually follow the former.

[Tannin]

Jake, last time I put that exact same argument to Flagreen, he did his Incredible Hulk trick and metamorphosed into The Giver! :eekers:

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[The Mirror]

?rorriM eht referp uoY

[timwhit]

So who is the mirror? Tannin or Flagreen? I have a feeling it is Tannin...

[The Mirror]

!ahahahahahuM

[Mercutio]

It's flagreen. And my hand is nowhere near the "IP" button, so don't start that again.
For some reason, the Mirror's location is flagreen-esque.

[Rocco Siffredi]

I think its Tannin :erm:

[Jake the Dog]

thanks for the advice tannin! i think i'll stop now...

i'm starting to feel lonely without a second personality. perhaps i need one as well. i'll take suggestions on the name of one... perhaps bazza the baa-lamb. perhaps i'm only joking :mrgrn:

[flagreen]

Jake and Tony,

First of all allow me to point out to both you and Tony that when say as have here in your second to last post;

bloody hell, how many times do i have to say it? are you not reading what i am saying?

again; I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT JUSTIFICATION.
that this is indeed exactly where The Giver would become abusive in return. He would do so because you have become reactionary and are shouting. This is what I mean when I say The Giver very rarely threw the first punch when it came to trading insults or becoming abusive. Maybe it's a cultural difference but I see the above quoted passage as provocative and aggressive. And Tony behaves the same way when he becomes frustrated.

Now then Jake,

What I have been trying to get across to you is that you are unwittingly obfuscating that which you are trying to say in this thread as you attempt to discuss American foreign policy and it's effect on the Arab world, within a thread whose theme was the explanation which I gave for the creation of The Giver following the events of 9-11. Obfuscation of this sort is very similar to that which Tony unintentionally employed in the thread he is referring to above. Primarily the cause is that on occasion you each choose your words in a careless manner. An example of this is when in your last post where you say the following;

The mitigating circumstances of self-defence allows for commutation of legel sentence.
Now, this sentence contains an error which obfuscates precisely what it is you are trying to say to the careful reader. It is correct enough that one can grasp in general what it is you perhaps mean, while at the same time incorrect enough to leave room for misunderstanding should this statement's conclusion be used as the basis for further argument or reasoning.

Here's what I mean, killing someone in self defence is not a crime, as we all agree. Now how can one be convicted of something which is not a crime? Obviously one cannot. Therefore there is no legal sentence to be given out is there? Or to be commuted as your statement puts forth. Further, self-defence is not a mitigating circumstance but rather a defence in and of itself. Do you see what I mean? Now you may think these errors are harmless but if you use erroneous wording such as this as the foundation upon which you will build further argument, you are building a house of cards which will fall at the slightest disruption. Here is another example of this;

what i meant was manslaughter can become justifiable homicide in a case where the mitigating circumstances are self defense.
I believe what you actually mean to say here is that killing someone in self defence is justifiable homicide not manslaughter. But what you literally said was that "manslaughter", which is always a crime, is not a crime when committed in self defence, which you describe as a "mitigating circumstance". First of all manslaughter is manslaughter and a crime is a crime. Neither can be transformed into something they are not. They mean what they mean. Secondly, self defence is a defence itself not a mitigating circumstance.

I do my best to read and understand what is being said. But when confusing and poorly worded statements such as the examples above are made, or when one changes the discussion ever so slightly in mid thread from topic A to topic B, it inevitably leads to a lack of communication by one or both parties resulting in mutual frustration.

[Jake the Dog]

if you think i'm being abusive then i think your being overly-sensitive and over-reacting. of course i am frustrated. i am shouting because your not listening. i made a point several times and you continued mix it with another issue, one in which i clearly said i was not talking about.

my use of words may no be perfect however as you have said you understand what i mean so i don't see a problem with our communication.

yes, i can easily get frustrated and you can get me to be so because, and i have said this before, of an apparent (to me) problem you have with receiving any sort of critisism about you personally or you beliefs.

i harbor no hard feelings against you though and i hopr you don't either.

[flagreen]

if you think i'm being abusive then i think your being overly-sensitive and over-reacting. of course i am frustrated. i am shouting because your not listening. i made a point several times and you continued mix it with another issue, one in which i clearly said i was not talking about. Ok so you don't think shouting is abusive, interesting. You apparently don't mind when people shout at you? You say on the one hand I am not listening but on the other hand you say below that you don't see a problem with our communication. And that makes sense to you? BTW you did "hear" at all what I was saying in my last post? Based on your above response I'd say you didn't. And your refusal to admit your shouting was out of line is so typical of those who insist that The Giver always throws the first punch. Look, when you're wrong do the easy thing, the right thing, and admit it like a man.


my use of words may no be perfect however as you have said you understand what i mean so i don't see a problem with our communication.
I don't know how to begin to respond to such obvious BS as this. I think you're playing games here because you don't care for what I said.



yes, i can easily get frustrated and you can get me to be so because, and i have said this before, of an apparent (to me) problem you have with receiving any sort of criticism about you personally or you beliefs.

I disagree with you here completely. It is interesting to note though that throughout your post you refuse to accept any responsibility for what is clearly a lack of clear communication between us. Further I apologise to no one for standing up for things in which I believe. And yes, when criticised unjustly, I will stand up for myself as well. If you don't care for that - too bad.

All in all Jake, you did a piss poor job of listening to what I said in my last post. I don't harbor any bad feelings towards you. In fact I like you. But Jake - You are full of shit as regards this whole matter.

[Cliptin]

[quote]The mitigating circumstances of self-defence allows for commutation of legel sentence.

Not to burst your bubble but that was my quote.

Jake's quote was less precise.

flagreen, it is common for African-Americans to become very loud while in discussions amongst themsleves. While I certainly find it difficult to participate in discussions at that volume :) , I would find it no more strange if this were a national Oz phenomena.

[Jake the Dog]

i bet you've been waiting to spring that one one me! it didn't do much for me but if it made you feel good, then it was worth it :P

in difference to you, i don't believe shouting is always abusive. mine in my case was not meant that way, it was meant to make it clear to you what i have been saying for quite a while now and it worked too. if your sensitive soul can't deal with that then bad luck mate. i suggest you take a chill pill, relax max, you need to get out more or something.

as far as communication goes, obviously i am wrong. there is a huge problem with our communication. i understand what you're saying and you can't see past your own opinions to and take in what i've been saying. my mistake. i could say i'll try not to let it happen again but really, how can i if you just won't get somethinghs through your sometimes thick head?

[flagreen]

My mistake Cliptin! My apologies to you and Jake both. I don't know if Jake missed that because he didn't read my post carefully, or just chose to let it go. At any rate I regret having attributed the statement to you Jake.

African-Americans may get loud in discussions but white late middle aged Americans such as myself usually do not. But more importantly it is not appropriate web etiquette anywhere.

[Splash]

thanks for the advice tannin! i think i'll stop now...

i'm starting to feel lonely without a second personality. perhaps i need one as well. i'll take suggestions on the name of one... perhaps bazza the baa-lamb. perhaps i'm only joking :mrgrn:

Actually that would be a good one. Then you could have the doggie chasing the lamb around.

...eh, maybe that's a bad idea.

[flagreen]

i bet you've been waiting to spring that one one me! it didn't do much for me but if it made you feel good, then it was worth it :P
Feeling any way in particular had nothing to do with it. Simply put, it's the truth Jake. You certainly have as much of a problem, if not more of one, than I do when it comes to self-examination and criticism. You just don't seem to be aware of it.


in difference to you, i don't believe shouting is always abusive. mine in my case was not meant that way, it was meant to make it clear to you what i have been saying for quite a while now and it worked too. if your sensitive soul can't deal with that then bad luck mate. i suggest you take a chill pill, relax max, you need to get out more or something.
Well I apreciate that but actually Jake, it made no difference whatsoever. It only aggrevates things. But it did help illustrate my point regarding The Giver.


as far as communication goes, obviously i am wrong. there is a huge problem with our communication. i understand what you're saying and you can't see past your own opinions to and take in what i've been saying. my mistake. i could say i'll try not to let it happen again but really, how can i if you just won't get somethinghs through your sometimes thick head?
Here is our delema; I feel exactly the same way about you. That is I don't think you understand me but I believe I know where you are coming from.

I'll take one more shot at trying to explain better where I am coming from reagrding this whole thing. Here's is what I believe, I believe that you do in fact think the WTC attack was justified. And I believe Tony does as well. I also believe that because it is socially unacceptable, you deny to yourselves and others that you each feel this way. You each say the right words, but when you get into a discussion about the facts, or the cause of the attack, your true feelings betray you. And it comes out in the constant inconsistencies in both of your arguments regarding the subject. The problem I believe is that you just can't admit it to yourselves.

Note - Edited as Jake was typing his next post in the thread. Please keep that in mind when reading his post. My initial response was far more hostile.

[Cliptin]

Jake, I hope you continue to participate.



i'll tell you what i think in any case. i think the US and it's citizens should look at why some Arab nations have such hatred fo the US and consider what it is that is causing it. if it's apparent that the policy is wrong, unfair, unrighteous, etc in someway to their culture, society or other, then yes, i beleive the US should adjust it's policy for two main reasons; 1) respect for rights to choose to live as they live and 2) self-defense.


To suggest that no one has an inkling of what any other nation thinks of the US is a little insulting. What is it exactly that you think diplomats do?

[Cliptin]

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that my reading of the thread is this:
Jake believes that no matter how "squashed" a country/people group might feel they are not justified in doing something on the scale of 9/11. But, that sort of incident or any incident really should be taken as a wake-up call that some people are upset with you and you should see if you can do something about it.

PS Just trying to help folks communicate.

[flagreen]

Yes Clipton but no wake up call was necessary. Where you unaware prior to 9-11 that the Muslim / Arab world hated us? What more evidence did we need other than to be at up on current events to know this? I was not unaware of this. And I know our government was not unaware of it. I have know this for 34 years!

What American over the age of seven alive in 1973 did not understand the cause of the Arab oil embargo? Or the Iranian hostage situation in 1979. Or the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's? Or all the plane hi-jackings, passenger jets blown up, Americans singled out to be executed, so on and so forth, these events were all pretty good tip offs that they were seriously unhappy with us.

No, we don't need a wake up call. And frankly it's insulting as you have said above to suggest that we do. These people who say such things have an agenda. It's as short and as sweet as that. Many times in this discussion with Jake I told him I understood the source of their anger, the motivation in doing the things they do. And I do, better than Jake does as a matter of fact. But I do not believe a change in our policy is the appropriate response to their rage. And he can't handle that.

I understand that the Muslim world feels they are justified in committing such acts as the WTC attack. I understand that they feel justified in intentionally targeting women and children. I understand why they feel this way and the source of their anger. And I have examined the possibility that our foreign policy is wrong. But I always come to the same conclusion. It is not wrong.

[flagreen]

Damn it I misspelled your name again Cliptin!

[Jake the Dog]

Here's is what I believe, I believe that you do in fact think the WTC attack was justified. And I believe Tony does as well. I also believe that because it is socially unacceptable, you deny to yourselves and others that you each feel this way. You each say the right words, but when you get into a discussion about the facts, or the cause of the attack, your true feelings betray you. And it comes out in the constant inconsistencies in both of your arguments regarding the subject. The problem is you just can't admit it to yourselves.

kindly get your head out of your arse and and take a deep breath for at the moment what you are saying surely stinks. you have once and for all proven yourself to be a paranoid wiseacre and an arrogant one at that. as i suspected before, regardless of what i have said, you choose to believe what you want to believe even though i plainly made it clear i think the 11/9 attacks were horrendous and unjustified. you may as well call me a liar, for that is what in effect you have done. i pity you as a person and sincerely hope IRL that you treat others with at least some more respect and face value than you have myself. your disregard of my words offends me and i no longer have any respect for you as flagreen, the giver or whoever you choose to hide behind as.

[Jake the Dog]

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that my reading of the thread is this:
Jake believes that no matter how "squashed" a country/people group might feel they are not justified in doing something on the scale of 9/11. But, that sort of incident or any incident really should be taken as a wake-up call that some people are upset with you and you should see if you can do something about it.

PS Just trying to help folks communicate.


yes that's the crux of it, thank you :)

[flagreen]

Here's is what I believe, I believe that you do in fact think the WTC attack was justified. And I believe Tony does as well. I also believe that because it is socially unacceptable, you deny to yourselves and others that you each feel this way. You each say the right words, but when you get into a discussion about the facts, or the cause of the attack, your true feelings betray you. And it comes out in the constant inconsistencies in both of your arguments regarding the subject. The problem is you just can't admit it to yourselves.

kindly get your head out of your arse and and take a deep breath for at the moment what you are saying surely stinks. you have once and for all proven yourself to be a paranoid wiseacre and an arrogant one at that. as i suspected before, regardless of what i have said, you choose to believe what you want to believe even though i plainly made it clear i think the 11/9 attacks were horrendous and unjustified. you may as well call me a liar, for that is what in effect you have done. i pity you as a person and sincerely hope IRL that you treat others with at least some more respect and face value than you have myself. your disregard of my words offends me and i no longer have any respect for you as flagreen, the giver or whoever you choose to hide behind as.

Well as you were in the process of posting this I was in the process of editing the post you quote from, though not the exact paragraph, to be far less "wise-acre".

Now Jake, let me ask you this - Care to revisit the following statement you made earlier today?
btw, is it not much easer to speak freely as you are as flagreen?
I didn't answer you then because I suspected this might turn out this way. But I think you'll agree that I was right when I explained my reasons for using a pseudonym to discuss this subject.

Despite all the animosity I have no hard feelings for you. In fact I still like you. I understand from what you have written in your post I quote above that you misunderstood me. No Jake, I am not saying that you are a liar. In fact, I'm sure that you are not. I am simply saying that we all harbor feelings which cannot admit to ourselves. Myself included. That's the long and short of it.

Now, take your own advise above and chill for a while. If you are going to get into playing games as you admittedly have, you've got expect a little bit of the shit you fling, to end up on yourself. Peace brother! :)

[Jake the Dog]

the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended.

unfortunately for you, you make the mistake of thinking everyone else is like you. you are so wrong. i say what i mean and i mean what i say. i don't harbor feelings i won't admit to others and certainly not myself. i am comfortable with my views and opinions and comfortable in expressing them (perhaps too much). others are like me too.

if you can't be honest with yourself how can you be honest with others?

[flagreen]

One last thing Jake,

For the record it was you who introduced the WTC attack into our discussion. And I quote -
the issue i had with some americans is that they could not at all accept that the arab anti-american rage might in part be a result of american foreign policy. i may or may not be correct in my belief but the point blank refusal by some americans to even consider that that could a possibilty is what got me involved in some of those discussion. i just find it frustrating to converse with people who won't consider all the possibilities of why such an event occurred. i have no personal issues with any of you and yes i can come across so i would understand if you have a problem with me.

Unless I am mistaken the event you refer to here is the WTC attack. Actually I know it is. When you get time go back and read all we have posted on this. If you still feel the same way about me so be it. But I do hope you have a change of heart.

Sincerely,
Bill

[flagreen]

the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended. Fair enough and well said. However I removed that because It was a response to you based upon my misunderstanding of your motives in writing that which I was responding to. To correct an error on my part in other words.


unfortunately for you, you make the mistake of thinking everyone else is like you. you are so wrong. i say what i mean and i mean what i say. i don't harbor feelings i won't admit to others and certainly not myself. i am comfortable with my views and opinions and comfortable in expressing them (perhaps too much). others are like me too.
Well everyone else is human aren't they. They all have the same foibles and what not. And despite what you may think, I am indeed human as well. As for the rest, there is such a thing as the sub-conscience mind Jake. And it is in this in which we all harbor that which cannot admit to ourselves. That includes you and me and everyone else here. To not have this mean we are not human! I have no doubt that you say what you mean, and mean what you say. There is no question about that. But human beings often have conflicts between what they believe in their conscience minds and what they feel sub-conscientiously. It is not a question of whether a person is lying or not. One is not responsible for what one feels sub-conscientiously.

Note - Edited once for spelling and once for leaving a word out. It's too late in the day.

[Cliptin]

Yes Clipton but no wake up call was necessary. Where you unaware prior to 9-11 that the Muslim / Arab world hated us? What more evidence did we need other than to be at up on current events to know this? I was not unaware of this. And I know our government was not unaware of it. I have know this for 34 years!

What American over the age of seven alive in 1973 did not understand the cause of the Arab oil embargo? Or the Iranian hostage situation in 1979. Or the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's? Or all the plane hi-jackings, passenger jets blown up, Americans singled out to be executed, so on and so forth, these events were all pretty good tip offs that they were seriously unhappy with us.

No, we don't need a wake up call. And frankly it's insulting as you have said above to suggest that we do. These people who say such things have an agenda. It's as short and as sweet as that. Many times in this discussion with Jake I told him I understood the source of their anger, the motivation in doing the things they do. And I do, better than Jake does as a matter of fact. But I do not believe a change in our policy is the appropriate response to their rage. And he can't handle that.

I understand that the Muslim world feels they are justified in committing such acts as the WTC attack. I understand that they feel justified in intentionally targeting women and children. I understand why they feel this way and the source of their anger. And I have examined the possibility that our foreign policy is wrong. But I always come to the same conclusion. It is not wrong.

To be honest, the first terrorist incident I remember is Flight 800(?) over Scotland and I don't even remember what year it was.

I don't want to get involved in the micromanagement of foriegn diplomacy. I would never know whether I had good intel or even all available intel operating as a private citizen. I live in a republic. I elect people to do this for me.

I accept that at any point in time people/countries may be upset with the US for rational reasons and irrational reasons. Amercans in foriegn contries are kidnapped and sometimes killed on a regular basis just because they are Americans. That is par for the course. The easy targets are humanitarian workers/missionaries because they generally do not have armed escorts. And all for what? The medicine stops; and the food stops.

These kidnappers are not able to tell the difference between Americans and the US government? Perhaps the folks that are so incenced should take a moment to reflect on why the US policy is what it is, as Jake suggests.

Indeed it seems 9/11 was a wake up call. Al-Q has no avenue for diplomacy. Their demands are unreasonable and there is no available leadership to sway. To be sure, those involved would not be satisfied with peaceful resistance and diplomacy. Their objective is quite clear. Therefor they must be rooted out of the situation like the infested tooth they are.

[flagreen]

My understanding, though limited to news reports is that Al Qaeda has no demands at all, only a mission. Which is to remove all Western influence from Islam. And secondarily to kill Jews and Americans whenever and wherever they can. In recent times they have sought to align themselves more closely with the Palestinian cause in a similar way to that of Sadam whenever the going gets tough. It's just a way of trying to rally Arab / Muslim support. As you say, there is no way to reason with these folks. It is kill or be killed. You can't make peace with people who do not want it.


These kidnappers are not able to tell the difference between Americans and the US government? Perhaps the folks that are so incenced should take a moment to reflect on why the US policy is what it is, as Jake suggests.

That's a very good point. But the thought that they could ever be so rational as to do so seems bizarre doesn't it?

[jtr1962]

My understanding, though limited to news reports is that Al Qaeda has no demands at all, only a mission. Which is to remove all Western influence from Islam. And secondarily to kill Jews and Americans whenever and wherever they can.


I think their primary mission is to kill Americans and Jews. If they had some agenda beyond that, they would have made demands after they hijacked the planes. They didn't. If they had considered themselves at war with the United States they would have only chosen to hit military or government targets, not a pair of office buildings full of civilians. Again, they didn't. One can only conclude that their goal is to kill as many Americans as possible. Their current desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction only further supports that goal. These are dangerous, unreasonable fanatics who cannot be appeased. They must be terminated with extreme prejudice, and I have said as much many times.

I certainly understand the Arab rage against the United States, but nothing can justify the attacks on the WTC. On the Pentagon(or Capitol Building or The White House), yes, but on the WTC, no. This was not a military or government target by any stretch of the imagination. The only reasons they were chosen was to both maximize the damage and number of casualties, and to strike out symbolically against "evil capitalism".

As for whether a change in our foreign policy is in order, I would have to say yes, but not to appease those who attacked us, but rather to prevent others from joining their ranks. For starters, our financial support for Israel should end since their is no rationale for supporting it. If the money and weapons supply were to dry up, Israel would find out very fast that it would have to learn to live among its Arab neighbors, if for no other reason than to keep its economy going. Right now the supply of US money and arms means that it can exist in a perpetual state of martial law.

Next, we should phase out use of fossil fuels so that the US has no reason to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. Probably the only reason we send money to Israel is to keep relative peace in the region in order to protect our oil supply. As I've mentioned numerous times, burning oil for power is bad in so many ways. It can and should be replaced with clean methods of generating power within a decade, regardless of the short term economic effect. Once that is done, any problems that arise in the region will be the fault of those who live there, and they will not be able to place blame on the United States any more. To be sure, there will still be some fanatics who will continue to do so, but their audience will grow smaller and smaller.

Third and last, I feel American businesses should not try to ram capitalism down the throats of every country in the region. This is often a greater source of problems for the locals than US foreign policy. Rightly or wrongly, many in the region do not want to see the Golden Arches among their mosques, and perhaps American businesses should only go in those places where they are welcome.

[Tea]

[quote="CliptinTherefor they must be rooted out of the situation like the infested tooth they are.[/quote]

Exactly. That is the first half of the solution. The second (and in the long-term more important) half, of course, is to stop eating all that sugar.

[flagreen]

As for whether a change in our foreign policy is in order, I would have to say yes, but not to appease those who attacked us, but rather to prevent others from joining their ranks. For starters, our financial support for Israel should end since their is no rationale for supporting it. If the money and weapons supply were to dry up, Israel would find out very fast that it would have to learn to live among its Arab neighbors, if for no other reason than to keep its economy going. Right now the supply of US money and arms means that it can exist in a perpetual state of martial law.
Although I agree with you about everything else you wrote I disagree with the above. A Majority of the Arab world still, 55 years after it's creation by UN sanction, want Israel pushed into the sea. I don't see how the Israeli's could ever "learn to live" with people who do want them to exist period. Further I am a supporter of US policy towards Israel. Including arms sales. Not for any personal reasons of my own but because I believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do.

Many folks believe that if Israel pulled out of the "occupied territories" that the violent attacks on Israel would end. But I could not disagree more with this assumption. The radical Palestinian groups in "Palestine" today are still very much committed to the total elimination of Israel. They have seized upon the "occupied territories" argument to garner world support. But they most definitely want more than Israel to pull out of the west bank. You only have to read the charters of these groups to see that they want Israel eliminated.

[jtr1962]

A Majority of the Arab world still, 55 years after it's creation by UN sanction, want Israel pushed into the sea. I don't see how the Israeli's could ever "learn to live" with people who do want them to exist period. Further I am a supporter of US policy towards Israel. Including arms sales. Not for any personal reasons of my own but because I believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do.


If what you are saying is true, then doesn't the continued US support of Israel create a source of instability in the region? Might not Israel be better off relocating somewhere else since it is not really wanted in that region?. Some parts of the desert in Nevada come to mind since this is similar in climate to where Israel currently exists, and there would not be masses of people right across the border ready to blow themselves up.

I personally feel that the UN had no justification for setting aside land for Israel in 1948 based solely on the ancient biblical location of Judea. This is tantamount to saying that if some group's distant ancestors lived in a region 2,000 years ago, their descendents have the right to kick the current occupants of that land out, and almost everyone can see that this is plainly wrong. The location of Israel should have been decided solely upon political and logistical factors, and I believe once those factors were taken into account, the location would have been one of the largely uninhabited areas of the United States or Canada. It was obvious following WWII that Jews would not be welcome in most of Europe, or in the USSR, or most of Africa. Therefore, the location of Israel would have had to have been in the Americas, and there would have been many suitable locations. To be sure, anti-Semitism doen exist in the United States, but it is not prevalent except among small groups, and I would rate Israel's chances for long term survival to be much better here than in it's current location.

[flagreen]

Well the "Nevada" idea is a very good one. But it's too late for that now. And I doubt that the Jews would have accepted this in 1948 either had it been offered. I think it's important to remember that were a sizable number of Jews already living in the Area in 1948. I am not sure that the sole reason the UN chose Palestine was for the reason you mention. I would have to research that a bit before I would agree with the statement. At any rate, the Palestinians use the same justification saying it is their ancestral homeland. So if neither's heritage is a valid reason for claiming the area as "theirs" and both peoples were in the area ( to be sure there more Arabs then Jews) prior to partitioning then what?

[CougTek]

Further I am a supporter of US policy towards Israel. Including arms sales. Not for any personal reasons of my own but because I believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do.
We don't often disagree Bill, but on this one, yes and radically.


The location of Israel should have been decided solely upon political and logistical factors, and I believe once those factors were taken into account, the location would have been one of the largely uninhabited areas of the United States or Canada.
Well, the Jews indeed chose a location in North America : it's called Outremont. This part of Montréal is full of it. The only thing that's missing is the suicidal terrorist Arab attack every now and then and you would swear you're in Israel when walking in Outremont.


I personally feel that the UN had no justification for setting aside land for Israel in 1948 based solely on the ancient biblical location of Judea. This is tantamount to saying that if some group's distant ancestors lived in a region 2,000 years ago, their descendents have the right to kick the current occupants of that land out, and almost everyone can see that this is plainly wrong. The location of Israel should have been decided solely upon political and logistical factors,...

I think it's important to remember that were a sizable number of Jews already living in the Area in 1948. I am not sure that the sole reason the UN chose Palestine was for the reason you mention. I would have to research that a bit before I would agree with the statement. At any rate, the Palestinians use the same justification saying it is their ancestral homeland.A good amount of the Jews who were already in Palestine by 1948 have also been recent immigrants from the very end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th. I don't remember the name of that movement, but it started in England around 1890. Some Jews wanted to reclaim their "God-given land" (what a mooseshit this entire belief is) and they started to organize population-move toward Palestine. UK supported them quite a bit for more or less the same reason U.S. supports them nowadays.

Now, why did UK, US and UN in general is backing the Jews in Israel? I see two reasons. First is to insure a friendly nation in the middle-East. It's a military reason. UN is principally led by US and occidental powers in general. Shortly after WWII, Occident needed a safe harbor, an access to the middle East and a spot close to USSR. What a golden opportunity for them the few millions of whining Jews left homeless by the Germans were. Give the Jews a spot the prized in exchange of a friendly access to the middle-East. And it was a politically correct decision too, as a good part of the world was full of pitty for the Jews after the horrors the Germans put them through. Two hits with one stone.

The second reason is that the UK of the early 20th century (end of industrial age) and United States of today have something in common : they are led by money. It is well known that money sticks to the Jews like flies sticks to shit. Any rich group of people can have a great deal of influence on a heavily capitalist country. Jews are one of the most powerful lobby in the United States (they were too in the UK of the early 20th century) so no wonder why they have the Americans on their way.

The biblical "rights" was, is and will always be a pretext to back up the Jews in Israel. The real motives are a lot more down-to-earth. The Americans in general wouldn't have a great deal of sympathy for the Jews if it wouldn't have been of the WWII masacre. They are not the same people, they don't share the same religion/customs/origins. The sympathy people like you (Bill) have for the Jews is mostly based on the pitty you have for what hapened to them about 50-60 years ago. IMO, it clouds your judgement on what they have become nowadays. I don't say they are an "evil nation", I simply say they are no better than any other group and they don't deserve all the attention and support your country give them.

[Tea]

In what way was the experience of the Jews in Europe 60 years ago different to that of the Palestinians today?

I wonder if your suggested "friendly nation in the Middle East" theory holds water, Coug. It's not a period of history I claim any expertise in (so far as I am concerned, anything post 1945 is not really "history" which is always of interest , but simply "current affairs" which is rather boring) so I don't know what the motivating factors were for the UK and its friends, but it seems unlikely - after all, the UK (and to a lesser extent the US) were on very good terms with most of the Arab world at that time: Iran (Persia) and Irak were client states barely above puppet status, the English had actual colonies of their own in Muscat and Oman, and the US had a virtual colony in Saudi Arabia. I don't think they could have had the faintest idea what their meddling was going to lead to.

(Ans: There are differernces. (a) the Palestinians fight back a lot harder, (b) the slaughter is at retail rather than wholesale level and not quite so official, (c) the Jews in 1944 had reason to hope: they had the world's most powerful nation as the enemy of their enemy (next best thing to a friend) and the world's second and fourth most powerful nations as their friends. The Palestinians of today have the world's most powerful nation as the friend of their enemy, quite possibly as their direct enemy, and no friend they can count on in the top ten most powerful nations.)

(And I bet two people out of three can't correctly identify those nations I just alluded to. I'll give a totaly worthless prize to the first correct answer.)

[flagreen]

My support for the Israelis is a primarily a result of the fact that following Partitioning in 1948 they have a firm legal basis for claiming the land as their own, and a legal right to exist as a nation. Yes, I know that they have expanded their borders into most of the land which was also offered to the Palestinians for their homeland, which the Palestinians rejected. But not to have done so following each of wars with the Arabs would have left Israel in a more vulnerable position among enemies who had already shown themselves to be committed to the destruction of Israel.

Secondarily it is because the Jews have been a persecuted people for most of the past 2000 years. No they are not without fault themselves when it comes to their treatment of the Palestinians. But it is hard to think of group of people who have been more ill treated throughout history than the Jews.

I'm not sure that Israel at this point would be doomed at all should the US withdraw her financial and military support from her. They are no doubt quite well aware that being dependant on the US puts them in a vulnerable position and have contingency plans should US support be withdrawn. They have also built quite an arms industry of their own now. And countries such as France and China seem willing to supply arms to anyone who can pay the price. Economically, I don't know how well they would fare. I suspect that should they lose official US financial aid, that private donations from here in the US would help to fill the void created.

Tannin I think you missed one key difference between the Jews of Europe in the 1940's and the Palestinian people of today. And that is that unlike Germany and the Jews, there is no "final solution" in place for the extermination of the Palestinian people. The motives of the "oppressor" in each case are quite different. Israel does not wish to exterminate the Palestinians, in fact a majority of the people of Israel would like to see the Palestinian problem settled so that they might live in peace with them. That's a far cry from what the Nazi's had in mind for the Jews of Europe.

[CougTek]

I disagree with the idea that the Jews have been the most abused people in the past 2000 years. Several small groups were just as badly ill-treated in Africa (many many years of slavery and genocides - like Hutu/Totsi stories) and in the south-east Asia (by the Khmer, who have been active well before Pol Pot). And if you think what happened to the Jews during WWIII was without comparison, you're wrong. Comparable large-scale masacres happened at least three times since (Pol Pot, Rwanda and Idi Amin Dada - I never remember how to write his name). Not to forget the inhabitants from Tibet and others shelterless like the Kurds. Jews aren't the worst, they are one among many others. Sure it's unfortunate what happened to them, but I'm tired of hearing people pity them more than others just because they are Jews.

What would have been right to say though was that the Jews have been the loudest oppressed people of the past 2000 years and probably the loudest whiners of the entire human history. We only see them in the news. I don't know how many million people died in Rwanda in 1993, but it was a lot more than the amount of people who died in Israel since 1948. But we don't hear about Rwanda anymore (or barely) and it's not even 10 years ago! But unless someone decides to live in exil in an unhabited area without a radio or T.V., there's no way you can miss the few deaths that happen in Israel. It's very sad for them, but there's no way they deserve that much attention when several other places of the world face worst situations.

We have the impression that the Jews have been so much oppressed because they are (and have always been) extremely good to put their miseries at the front page of the powerful nations. If your goal is to help the oppressed people, you should try to find a solution to the problem of the Kurds or start to give some attention to the few forgotten wars in Africa that are still going on and kill far more people than the fews puff! here and there in Israel. Alas, CNN coverage seems to determine the misery scale of a lot of people.

That said, I wouldn't change my life for the one of an average Jew in Israel, but I also know I could fall a lot lower if I would be in some other places of the world.

[jtr1962]

It is well known that money sticks to the Jews like flies sticks to shit. Any rich group of people can have a great deal of influence on a heavily capitalist country. Jews are one of the most powerful lobby in the United States (they were too in the UK of the early 20th century) so no wonder why they have the Americans on their way.




What would have been right to say though was that the Jews have been the loudest oppressed people of the past 2000 years and probably the loudest whiners of the entire human history.


As much as I hate to admit it in a public forum those two statements are both true in a general sense(of course they don't apply to every individual of Jewish heritage). Since my city has a very large(and vocal) Jewish population I feel that I'm an expert on this particular subject. In a nutshell, Cougtek gave the two primary reasons why Jews have been(and are) despised in much of the world, and I would say the latter reason is probably the primary cause. Other ethnic groups have prospered without rousing the ire of the general population, so I think that it is this propensity to complain about everything, no matter how minor, and to have laws passed which are self-serving, that has resulted in institutionalized anti-Semitism throughout history. Some local examples I can think of are Jews bringing up "separation of Church and state" every time someone displays a cross in a public area or a parade while at the same time Menorahs appear in similar situations. Other examples are the construction of temples smack in the middle of blocks full of private homes in my neighborhood(try to construct a church in the same location and see how far you'll get).

BTW, where I live was probably ~50% Jewish when I moved here 24 years ago, but I would say the percentage now is 20 to 25% thanks to the primarily Chinese and Korean influx. I don't really consider myself prejudiced against Jews but I breathe a sigh of relief every time a Chinese family moves in and a Jewish family moves out for the simple reason that I have had Jewish neighbors who mind my business and complain about every minor thing. I honestly can't say I've experienced the same thing with such regularity from any other group of people, and I have done my best to try to keep my negative experiences from coloring my feelings about a whole group of people. But it is difficult at times, and I find similar feelings in many others of various ethnicities that I have discussed the subject with.

I offer my apologies in advance if this post offends any Jewish members of this forum. I happen to like everyone here even if I don't always agree with them, and I hope they feel the same about me. :) (Thinks before hitting submit button)

[CougTek]

It is well known that money sticks to the Jews like flies sticks to shit. Any rich group of people can have a great deal of influence on a heavily capitalist country. Jews are one of the most powerful lobby in the United States (they were too in the UK of the early 20th century) so no wonder why they have the Americans on their way.
[...]
What would have been right to say though was that the Jews have been the loudest oppressed people of the past 2000 years and probably the loudest whiners of the entire human history.

Well, I admit I might have worded what I wanted to express in a way that is a bit crude. Oh well, I'm known for being crude anyway. Helldiver will probably find a hundred manners to call me an anti-semitist. Nevermind.

of course they don't apply to every individual of Jewish heritage
I just want to mention that I agree with the above. I don't like the way Jews act generally, but I wouldn't run after someone with a bat simply because he wears a round Kleenex on his head. I think I even heard on Discovery channel the other day that some researchers found evidence of the existence of a genuine good Jew somewhere in a remote part of the Middle-East. ;-) No seriously, I realize that no individual should be taken accountable of all the mistakes his "kind" has commited over the ages. I'll stop here before someone thinks I might be a good guy afterall.

[James]

so I don't know what the motivating factors were for the UK and its friends [to push for the formation of the state of Israel]
Primarily Jewish terrorism, as far as I can tell. Far be it for me to point out the irony.

[flagreen]

Well I would have to say that the loudest group of whiners in the last 2000 years would have to be the National Organization of Women. :)

I could be wrong, but I had thought the Jews were promised a homeland by the UK long before Jewish terrorism began in the late 1940's. And the terrorism they practised did not target women and children. Again, I haven't studied this so if I am mistaken please correct me.

At any rate, whining or being tight with their money certainly is not relevant as to the Palestinian / Israeli problem today. Nor is it relevant as to who has what legal claim upon the land.

[James]

I could be wrong, but I had thought the Jews were promised a homeland by the UK long before Jewish terrorism began in the late 1940's. And the terrorism they practised did not target women and children. Again, I haven't studied this so if I am mistaken please correct me.

You're correct that Balfour promised the Jews a homeland in 1917.


During World War I, the Zionist cause gained some degree of support from Great Britain. In a 1917 letter from British foreign secretary Lord Balfour to Jewish financier Lord Rothschild, the British government expressed a commitment to creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This letter is commonly known as the Balfour Declaration. Unfortunately, the British were speaking out of both sides of their mouth, simultaneously promising Arabs their freedom if they helped to defeat the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, which at that time controlled most of the Middle East (including the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as significant portions of Saudi Arabia and northern Africa). The British promised the Arabs that they would limit Jewish settlement in Palestine mere months after the Balfour Declaration expressed support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

After World War I, Palestine was assigned to the United Kingdom as a mandated territory by the League of Nations. The Palestinian Mandate initially included the lands that are now Israel and Jordan, but all lands east of the Jordan River were later placed into a separate mandate known as Transjordan (now the nation of Jordan). The document creating the Palestinian mandate incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration, promising the creation of a national Jewish homeland within the mandated territory. Although Arab leaders were initially willing to give Palestine to the Jews if the rest of the Arab lands in the Middle East were free, the Arabs living in Palestine vigorously opposed Jewish immigration into the territory and the idea of a Jewish homeland. It is around this time that the idea of Palestinian nationality (distinct from Arab nationality generally) first begins to appear. There were many riots in the territory, and the British came to believe that the conflicting claims were irreconcilable. In 1937, the British recommended partition of the territory.

The Holocaust brought the need for a Jewish homeland into sharp focus for both Jews and for the rest of the world. The Jews who tried to flee Nazi Germany were often turned back due to immigration limitations at the borders of every country, including the United States, Britain and Palestine. Many of those who were sent back to Germany ended up in death camps where they were systematically murdered.

The British were unable to come up with a solution that would satisfy either Arabs or Jews, so in 1947, they handed the problem to the newly-founded United Nations, which developed a partition plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab portions. The plan was ratified in November 1947. The mandate expired on May 14, 1948 and British troops pulled out of Palestine. The Jews of Palestine promptly declared the creation of the State of Israel, which was recognized by several Western countries immediately.

Obviously given the source it's not terribly even-handed. Here's the story of someone's efforts to find out some more detail on what happened during this time :

http://www.mediamonitors.net/isaacmelton1.html

Chomsky has some interesting things to say too :

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html

Or if you don't have time to read it all (although it's an interesting read) :

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c05-s04.html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s10.html and onwards.

Here's a timeline and body count, although it is pro-Palestinian it seems correct as far as my memory of the books I have read goes.

http://www.mideastfacts.com/ziterror39_74.html

[flagreen]

Thanks for posting the links. I "reviewed" all of them. You know finding a source of unbiased factual information on this subject seems impossible. And there are so many facts, that to put forth all of them for review would take a very long time. I suspect though that if there were such a source, it would take an equally long time to evaluate them and it still would not be possible to arrive at a clear sense of who is right and who is wrong in this situation. In short, there does not seem to be any solution to the problem which both sides would accept as fair.

And of course what is done is done. The UN did partition Palestine and so de facto created a Jewish State. So it is too late to say "Let us reverse our decision and un-partition Palestine". I don't think there is going to be solution found in our lifetimes to solve this problem.

My problem with the Palestinians is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Israel) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

[time]

My problem with the Israelis is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Palestine) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

I agree with you Bill, although I note that the UN has now been trying to correct the error for most of the time since.

I think it boils down to: the Palestinians are 'right', but they are going about it the wrong way. Of course, that's from a detached observer's point of view. I'm certain I would think rather differently if I was either Israeli or Palestinian.

[Tea]

There is only one answer. The international community has to stop being such hopeless whimps. We tell Israel that it has two choices:

(a) get out of the occupied territories forever right now, and we will continue to provide financial and military support on the same scale that we do now for as long as neccessary. If they need even more military hardware to protect themselves against kids with rifles, we will give them that too. Though it's hard to see what else could possibly be needed. But if need be we will send in the US Marines, the British Navy, the French Foreign Leigon, the RCMP, the Australian F-111 fleet, and the New Zealand Prime Minister. (New Zealand doesn't have an Air Force anymore, but the sound of Ms Clarke's voice is sufficient to strip paint at 50 paces, so that's probably close enough.)

(b) don't get out of the occupied territories within a reasonable period - one week should be sufficient but we could give them a month - and we will no longer provide any aid: political, military, or financial. Further, we will use our influence with the former USSR and with China to see to it that no one else will sell them arms either. All Israeli off-shore bank accounts will be frozen, it will be illegal to send money or goods there (just as it is illegal to give money to the IRA), Israeli aircraft will not be allowed to land anywhere in the civilised world, and if the Arabs care to blow them off the face of the planet, we don't care. Indeed, if the Palestinians or their friends come to us and ask for the arms with which to recover their occupied homelands, we will consider the request sympathetically.

The entire package to be non-negotiable. Get out of the occupied territories and we help. Or stay and face oblivion at the hands of the people you oppress. No talks, no negotiations, no hand-wringing, no shuttle diplomacy - for none of these have ever worked - and no promises, for no-one will believe them. One non-negotiable offer.

Take it or leave it.

[flagreen]

Well that's a good idea, (a) above, and I would "vote" for that. But that would only solve the current crisis. I mean, we would only be back to where we were in '73 or '67.

We would still be left with this -
My problem with the Palestinians is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Israel) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.
Versus this -
My problem with the Israelis is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Palestine) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.
And that is a formula for further trouble if I ever saw one.

[Tea]

My feeling, Bill, is that the incredble intransigence and astonishing capacity for hate and violence both sides have demonstrated so far will slowly, ever so slowly, start to dissapate once it becomes absolutely clear that there is no room for manouvere; that, in terms of my proposal above, the Palestinians will never be able to push Israel into the sea, and that the Israelis will never be able to eliminate the Palestinians. Lack of tangible reward for effort will, if maintained resolutely enough, extinguish any known pattern of human behaviour. But we have to be absolutely firm.

And the real question, in this terroristic modern world, is not "can we afford to to be absolutely firm with the madmen in the Middle East for however long it takes?" - it is "can we afford not to be?"

[flagreen]

Well said Tea!

As time passes the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel appears more and more like a miracle. Here was Begin, the "Sharon" of his day in more ways then one, responding to Sadat's geniune desire for peace. Sadat in return for recognition of Israel's right to exist and willingness to seek peace got all the Sinai back, removal of the Isareli settlements in the Gaza, and a peace which has lasted 20 years thus far. I believe I have the facts right here but I don't please jump in and correct me.

If such a leader would come forth from the Palestinians who spoke for all the Palestinians including the PLO, Hamas, etc. and if Sharon would be as willing as Begin was who knows? But as I type that I can't help but keep thinking that the groups like Hamas would not be satisfied with this. And whatever Palestinian leader would come forth to do this would be signing his own death warrant much as Sadat did.

[Cliptin]

My problem with the Israelis is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Palestine) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

#1: What evidence do you have that they seek to "eliminate" anyone?

#2: How do you "eliminate" dirt?

Other than in the standard medical sense.

[Mercutio]

Tannin states, above, that in the absence of any tangible reward, any human behavior can be extinguished. Firstly, I don't think that's the case - probably everyone here has heard of cases here a parent has refused medical treatment for an easily-curable disease for a dying child. Secondly, a tremendous number of persons in this world have some greater or lesser self-destructive habit (many would probably hold the "I need a drink" thread as an example); something that offers no reward. Ever seen a long-time heroin addict?

My personal feeling is that some extremist on one side or another will engage a nuclear-level solution. I'm not suggesting that one state or the other will be toppled, but given what I read and see from both sides, there is not a chance that any rational discussion of any of this will occur until there is absolutely nothing left worth fighting over and/or no one left to fight.

A few weeks ago, I watched a TV show in which a policaman locks a couple of feuding drug dealers inside a semi-trailer, then walks away, thinking that they would resolve their problems with words. When he returns a few hours later, only one of the dealers walks out. This is very, very similar to the opinion - and probably outcome - I've heard a great many people in my part of the world, espouse with regard to the middle east.

No strongarm tactic from another government will work. Peace talks clearly don't work (another thing, I'm not convinced that Arafat has any control over the agencies responsible for recent bombings; Arafat is a secularist; there's an idealogical difference between those seeking civil authority and those wishing to claim it on the basis of theological mandate). I don't see a solution to generations of hatred, there.

[jtr1962]

My personal feeling is that some extremist on one side or another will engage a nuclear-level solution. I'm not suggesting that one state or the other will be toppled, but given what I read and see from both sides, there is not a chance that any rational discussion of any of this will occur until there is absolutely nothing left worth fighting over and/or no one left to fight.


Those are my feelings regarding the matter as well. The truth is that there will never be peace between people who are bred to hate each other. There is also the little problem that both sides feel their respective faiths entitle them to the same land. Since such faith is based on unchanging scripture, one can see that the current situation is clearly hopeless since both sides will continue to point to passages in their respective holy books to defend their views(anyone here remember that disgusting OT:Israel thread in the old SR forums which beautifully illustrated this?)

Given the small size of the area, it won't take too many nuclear suicide bombers to completely decimate it, but maybe amid the ashes of Israel-Palestine the rest of the world will see how truly asinine it is fighting over petty differences. Then again, maybe not. Right now India-Pakistan has me more worried than Israel-Palestine.

[time]

I'm sorry if anyone is annoyed at my continuing this thread, but this quote seemed too good to ignore. It's from Cherie Booth, the wife of the UK prime minister:

"As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress."

The Opposition says the Prime Minister's wife has used most unfortunate words which will cause massive offence, but a government spokesman says Ms Booth has simply made a statement of the obvious.

[James]

I think she's Cherie Blair, not Booth.

[time]

When she's not being the PM's fashion accessory, she goes under her maiden name, Booth. This includes all her legal work and any public statements or opinions. (http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,587243,00.html)

[flagreen]

Here's surprise - Both sides are back at it again today.

I've had times in my life where I felt there was no hope. Fortunately I didn't explode.

[Tannin]

"As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress."

The Opposition says the Prime Minister's wife has used most unfortunate words which will cause massive offence..

Sometimes, oppositions are just so efing stupid. WTF else is there to say about the situation? And have they managed to work out who wil be offended yet? The kids? The Israeli governmemt? Santa Claus? Or is that a minor detail that can be left till later? If that's the best they can manage, it's no wonder that Tony Blaiir looks set to remain in office for a long, long time.

[Prof.Wizard]

http://www.boomspeed.com/bishop336/gay.jpg

[CougTek]

???

[time]

I've never heard of a thread coming out before. Is this some sort of obscure reference to Flagreen's confession?

[flagreen]

Nope - I checked my own IPs and doesn't say anything about being Gay. :)

[Handruin]

What the...???

[Prof.Wizard]

Sorry, I guess it was really OT. :oops:
Nevermind. I'll throw it somewhere else next time...

[James]

Nevermind. I'll throw it somewhere else next time...
Can't wait. :roll:

[Santilli]

And he's been emailing me about the situation. Suffice to say the devastation touches every family in a very small place, the size of San Francisco. The people are very close, and the bombings kill and maim and effect, just about every family in the area. This is not an impersonal war. It's having your neighbor's daughter, 6, killed on the way to school, etc.

Allen Keyes put it well. We fail to understand the kind of mind set that develops from people under this combat situation, since we are not. We had a very small taste of it in September, but, the Jews live with it on a daily basis.
Keyes point was this sort of random bombing makes people react in one way: wanting to elimenate the source of the problem. I have little doubt that Isreal has to come up with a military solution, and we have to support it, since the other side is willing to die, rather then negotiate, or, when they negotiate, they do so just to improve their position for conducting violence.

Also keep in mind that the population of Isreal is now affected by a large group of Russian Jewish immigrants. NOT the softest, or most likely to negotiate of the faith.

I think we must accept that in certain situations, diplomatic solutions fail.

Our messing around in other countries is affected by our own pomp and circumstance. We are not there, facing the hate, and the fanatics that want to kill us.

I like to analogize this conflict to Bosnia, where we supported the Moslems, who had just fought a conquering war,
taking territory, and, we jumped into stop the terrorist attacks by the people that had occupied the land, prior to 1994.

I suspect it would be best if we support our allies, limit our participation in other nations wars, and try and deal with our own immigration problems, and corporation problems.

Perhaps we should take a more modern, European view of immigration, to protect ourselves from terrorism.

gs

[Prof.Wizard]

Interesting view Santili, I agree with all parts.
But this topic deserves another thread, not The Giver's...

Please, if you will, enrich it and post it again in an independent thread. :idea:

[Santilli]

The Giver came about because of a fear of ostrazation by the mainly liberal community in Storage Review. Bill and I live in an area that is at the forefront of the liberal-facist movement. NOTHING is less tolerant then a liberal that you disagree with.
In my work area, you have to fake being a liberal to survive, regardless whether you believe the crap they put out, or, if you have direct, contrary experience.

For example, in my teaching and coaching experience, the kids I worked with LIKED the fact that they knew where they stood with me, and I told them straight up, where I was, and that I had a zero tolerance for mouthing off, or fighting in the gym. They called me "old school", "ref", or "street", from the NBA basketball game, but none was meant with disrespect, just the reverse.

Likewise, my entire class complemented me on my handling of the ongoing discipline problems in the class, and wished I was returning, not the current teacher.

Likewise the older coaches, and some of the kids at the St. Mary's tournament.

It's odd that in this area of liberal "forgiveness" I get great respect because I'm not afraid to stand up for my principles, state clearly where I stand, and let the students know exactly what they have to do to pass, and, what the consequences are going to be for their actions.

This flys in the face of the more 'modern' means of discipline.

Many other people respect that approach, as well.

That said, the flip side is such a position can cost you your job, if you run into many of the administrators around here...

Likewise, I can understand Bill's concern for his standing, and the necessity of creating a different persona to put forward his ideas, contrary to the general group at SR.

All he had to do was look at the impailing I got, thanks to Eugene and Davin, along with a couple of their friends, for proof that such an attack could occur.

I think Bill's creation of another personna is something that was required at the time, and I think we should respect both his personnas.

Bringing him out of the closet was something he should have done, at his own time, not being forced out by anyone.

gs

[Prof.Wizard]

I agree to an advanced extend. It's true that some times the so-called liberals are the least tolerant and least discussing...

PS. Sorry, cheap shot: ostrazation --> ostracism
PPS. There are many MANY M-A-N-Y more examples as the one you gave about given things that are not as they seem (ie. liberals-tolerant). I can bring examples from politics in EU to group psychology...

[Santilli]

liberal

lib·er·al [líbb?r?l, líbbr?l] adjective
1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
2. POLITICS progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
3. generous: generous with money, time, or some other asset • My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.
4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount • a liberal helping
5. LANGUAGE not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in t

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

The number one is the juxtaposition to the current batch that is so disheartening.

"liberals" are anything but that. They refuse to engage in the discussion of ideals, mores, and ethics that are such an integral part of the dialectic process.

Ann Coulter beat me to the punch, and has published a book on the subject.

gs

[Cliptin]

#2 Is quite laughable itself!

What does Encarta say out Conservative or Liberatarian?

[The Grammar Police]

Why laughable? That is what the word means, and even my friend Tannin - a card-carrying Microsoft basher - is unable to fault them in this regard. It is more or less exactly the same definition that you will find in any of the world's great dictionaries: the Oxford, Websters, the Macquarie, you name it.

If you have misunderstood the word up until today, or applied it to people that the description does not fit, that is your fault. Next time you want to describe someone, use a word that fits better.

[The Grammar Police]

Here, allow me to demonstrate with a small fictitious conversation.

Jones: "Do you know Cliptin, Smith?"

Smith: "Sure. He's the one with the purple hair."

Jones: "Purple hair? I don't see anyone with purple hair here."

Smith: "There! The one over in the corner talking to the Bartender."

Jones: "Oh. Him? But he has brown hair."

Smith: "No, it's purple."

Jones: "Purple? You are kidding me. It's nothing like purple! His hair is lighter than black, has no particular hint of red or blue in it, and is darker than blonde."

Smith: "Exactly: purple. Why do you always have so much trouble understanding me, Jones?"

Jones: "Smith, that is not purple.

Smith: "Yes it is."

Jones" "If you look up 'purple' in a dictionary you will find that it is not."

Smith: "OK smarty pants, let's do it. Websters good enough for you?

Jones: "Sure."

Smith: "Right, according to Webster, 'purple' is 'any of a group of colors with a hue between that of violet and red.' Hey! That's nothing like Cliptin's hair!"

Jones: "See what I mean?"

Smith: "I sure do! That bloody dictionary is wrong again!"

[Cliptin]

2. POLITICS progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual


In particular:
Using the word reform is way too ambiguous to be used in this context. Not to meantion the word progressive.

The fundemental aspect of democracy is that of personal responsibility and freedom. The liberal movement in the US would like to take responsibility for me. Wants to concentrate this responsibility and centralize it. This is anti-thetical to democracy.

[The Grammar Police]

That can't possibly be true. The word "liberal" means (among other things) "tending to protect the personal freedom of the individual". (Refer dictionary definition above.) It is logically impossible for a 'liberal movement' to do as you claim.You just said this yourself, in your quoted definition.

Now there may well be a movement in the US that is trying to reduce personal freedom (not being on the spot, it's not for me to comment on that). But if there is, then by definition it is not a 'liberal' movement.

[Cliptin]

That can't possibly be true. The word "liberal" means (among other things) "tending to protect the personal freedom of the individual". (Refer dictionary definition above.) It is logically impossible for a 'liberal movement' to do as you claim.You just said this yourself, in your quoted definition.

Now there may well be a movement in the US that is trying to reduce personal freedom (not being on the spot, it's not for me to comment on that). But if there is, then by definition it is not a 'liberal' movement.

Indeed, the right and the left have been known to come to mean the opposite. And then some time later switch back. Maybe it's the result of the two party system. At current, it is as I described. At present, the party in the US that advocates the most hands-off approach would be the Liberiarian party. Any wonder why we get so frustrated with politics.

Aside: I think one reason US citizens don't consider international politics more closely as because it takes so much energy for domestic politics. Maybe it takes as much energy everywhere. Dunno.

[Tea]

[ I think one reason US citizens don't consider international politics more closely as because it takes so much energy for domestic politics.

Ahh, and there is the nub of it. Well, as long as you can laugh there is not too much wrong with the world. And with that remark, Cliptin, for no particular reason you gave me a good old-fashioned belly laugh. Sometimes I'm glad I'm just an ape. You humans really are strange creatures. My lot, over on this side of the big pond, are just as silly as your lot. Possibly even sillier. Hell, what rational creature would be sitting in the office at 12:22AM doing bloody taxation paperwork just because there is a new tax system that 51% of the country voted against?

Poor Tannin. He's lucky he's got me to keep him company.:)

(Tea! Will you stop messing about on the web and let me get back to my spreadsheet?)

(Oh. Sorry Tannin. But even you were laughing at Cliptin's post.)

(Yes, yes. Now can I do some work? Or do you want to be here all night?)

(Sorry.)

[HellDiver]

'tis I my friends, flagreen.
Why am I not surprised?

It is kind of sad, though, that a person had to resort to using an alias in order to troll... err... express his true views, I mean. IMHO that says something about the community, or about that person's perception of community. Or perhaps about the person himself. Pitiful, actually. :blue:




Well, I admit I might have worded what I wanted to express in a way that is a bit crude. Oh well, I'm known for being crude anyway. Helldiver will probably find a hundred manners to call me an anti-semitist. Nevermind.
I won't need a hundred - one will do, you anti-semitic pig! :wink:
On a serious note, there is a certain anti-semitic taste to your claims (and I'm not talking about the two specific passages you quoted). However!!! Since I've also read around your posts a little, I think I understand the roots or motives for such inclination in your views, and IMHO those roots mainly boil down to lack of information and historical background / misinformation. As such, I don't see too much wrong with it, since if someone described Canadians to me as bloodthirsty cannibals that seek the destruction of US and slaying of <whatever the current prez would be at the time> on the altar of whatever their screwed-up Canadian God is - yeah, I think I'd be expressing anti-Canadian views as well.
Except, perhaps, for the fact that if I really felt like discussing the need to launch a full-scale nuclear strike against "our friendly but backwards neighbours"* with someone in a serious conversation, chances are I would have researched the subject thoroughly myself prior to making any claims, rather than relying on hearsay.



BTW, I've noticed that some of the posts by some of the individuals were edited, but I could locate no way to edit my own posts. IMHO, given the nature of the messageboard allowing editing of the posts was a bad idea as in itself (which eventually leads to extensive monkey business with members addressing other members in less than agreeable ways and then simply removing the questionable content, thus "clearing their own record"), and much more so if the possibility to edit posts was granted to selected few of the members, thus also putting the rest of the community at a disadvantage.
Unless I missed something about posts editing, that is!



P.S. As some of the SR members who know me for a couple of years have probably guessed, I'm currently in my "off" phase of the "on again, off again" cycle on the boards. I just came back to look up something specific and bumped into this thread. So, even though you may feel free to answer this post, I'm not sure I'll have the time to have a look at the replies anytime soon. My apologies in advance.

See ya all, folks! :beer:

-----------------
* - long, long time ago ;), when SR forums still bloomed and actually contained all the threads, I posted a very nice map of "World according to Yanks". I think it was in AtC thread or something similar - perhaps some of the old-timers still remember it :roll: Well, that's where the name comes from.

[flagreen]

Only moderators can edit posts (of which I am one). The practice of moderators editing their own posts is now forbidden without the consent of the other moderators.

Welcome back.

[The Giver]

'tis I my friends, flagreen.
Why am I not surprised?

It is kind of sad, though, that a person had to resort to using an alias in order to troll... err... express his true views, I mean. IMHO that says something about the community, or about that person's perception of community. Or perhaps about the person himself. Pitiful, actually. :blue:
Hmm.. well it must be the community as The Giver got the best if you on more than one occasion and surely the all knowing Helldiver could not be bested by someone who is "pitiful" now could he?




Well, I admit I might have worded what I wanted to express in a way that is a bit crude. Oh well, I'm known for being crude anyway. Helldiver will probably find a hundred manners to call me an anti-semitist. Nevermind.
I won't need a hundred - one will do, you anti-semitic pig! :wink:
On a serious note, there is a certain anti-semitic taste to your claims (and I'm not talking about the two specific passages you quoted). However!!! Since I've also read around your posts a little, I think I understand the roots or motives for such inclination in your views, and IMHO those roots mainly boil down to lack of information and historical background / misinformation. As such, I don't see too much wrong with it, since if someone described Canadians to me as bloodthirsty cannibals that seek the destruction of US and slaying of <whatever the current prez would be at the time> on the altar of whatever their screwed-up Canadian God is - yeah, I think I'd be expressing anti-Canadian views as well.
Except, perhaps, for the fact that if I really felt like discussing the need to launch a full-scale nuclear strike against "our friendly but backwards neighbours"* with someone in a serious conversation, chances are I would have researched the subject thoroughly myself prior to making any claims, rather than relying on hearsay.
Well now there is the arrogant social misfit we all know as Helldiver plying his trade as only he can. Walked on any water lately?

[Tea]

Hi HellDiver! Nice to see you popping in.

[[Edit]]

Adreil,

Creating fictional characters is not lying any more than writing characters in a novel is lying, or acting a part in a play is lying...


Flagreen,

You muther wear COMBAT BOOTS!

...heeheehee

[Handruin]

Wow, it had taken you all of 5 years to post that back to flagreen? He's been gone for years man...