The Giver revealed...

[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...

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 (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.

 

[NRG = mc²]

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]

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

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

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.