Grace Hague wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:01:45 -0800, GaryE wrote > (in message <60u93058ftibofi3lcl99hqanj6mo9u...@4ax.com>):
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 6:39:21 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com> >> wrote:
>>> and through >>>> some eyes of Truman biographers a long time ago.
>>> That is ridiculous, Gary. Criticizing US policy does not make >>> someone anti-US. That's a trick the Bushites and the talk radio >>> boobs like to perpetuate; I thought you were better than that.
>> Damn Grace, you were complaining to me about condescension?
> It certainly wasn't my intent to condescend to you, Gary, I saw your > reply to Kai and you said straight out that he's anti-US because he > criticizes US foreign policy. Hell, probably more than 3/4 of the > world is anti-US and for good reason - which a number of us have > tried to elucidate to you.
I don't care if 99% of the world is anti-US. I am one Canadian who is not overcome with envy and jealousy of Uncle Sam. When the U.S. went into Afghanistary, Iraq, and earlier, into Serbia, they were doing the RIGHT think, even though unpopular in some quarters. I have no respect for uneducated, ill-based opinions of those who continually carp away at the U.S. for doing something, sometimes to make to world a better place. A pox on the liberals and other isolationists who live far away from reality. Life is REAL, not what you might WANT it to me. Feelings are secondary. FACTS count.
>>> You might try reading Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United >>> States" or >>> just about anything by Noam Chomsky. That might give you another >>> persoective.
>> Oh hell, Grace, I'm not a John Bircher. I didn't even know that >> article was done by a Bircher. I just ran across it on Google and >> popped it out here and got 'the attack dogs' going on me. I should >> be more careful.
> Maybe. I lived in this little hick town in Maine when I was a kid and > the Birchers pretty much took over the school board back in the 60's, > Scary bunch. It wasn't much fun to be labeled a 15 year old Commie > because I opposed the Vietnam war. Its strange to see similar > mindless flagwaving all in the name of "fighting terrorism". Can't we > fight terrorism and not be idiots about it? Feels like deja vu all > over again, Gary.
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:28:35 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com> > wrote:
>> It certainly wasn't my intent to condescend to you, Gary, I saw your reply >> to >> Kai and you said straight out that he's anti-US because he criticizes US >> foreign policy. Hell, probably more than 3/4 of the world is anti-US and >> for >> good reason - which a number of us have tried to elucidate to you.
> I guess I'm just not as bright as you guys. Thanks for trying to > teach me the truth....errr...I mean 'elucidate me.'
>> Maybe. I lived in this little hick town in Maine when I was a kid and the >> Birchers pretty much took over the school board back in the 60's, Scary >> bunch. It wasn't much fun to be labeled a 15 year old Commie because I >> opposed the Vietnam war. Its strange to see similar mindless flagwaving >> all >> in the name of "fighting terrorism". Can't we fight terrorism and not be >> idiots about it? Feels like deja vu all over again, Gary.
> So you're saying that people who don't see it the way you do are > idiots?
I'm not gonna dignify that, Gary. I realize that this is a tactic you use to deflect argument, and I refuse to go down that road.
> FWIW. An old axiom. It is axiomatic that fanatics and extremists > will consider even moderation as opposition and all opposition as > flawed characters or stupid. Know you aren't an extremist or fanatic, > that you are well, more than mainstream with 3/4's of the world in > your corner as "anti US" (That's what you wrote up there). But Kai > protested he wasn't anti US. So he's in the 1/4 that I'm in?
Who said I am anti-US? Didn't I write earlier that being critical of US policy does not equate to being anti-US. I think you are being a tad passive-aggressive, Gary.
Grace Hague wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:31:19 -0800, GaryE wrote > (in message <l9ha30h7an2jhlf1nfsiu7r2tihajpe...@4ax.com>):
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:28:35 -0800, Grace Hague >> <gra...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>> It certainly wasn't my intent to condescend to you, Gary, I saw >>> your reply to >>> Kai and you said straight out that he's anti-US because he >>> criticizes US foreign policy. Hell, probably more than 3/4 of the >>> world is anti-US and for >>> good reason - which a number of us have tried to elucidate to you.
>> I guess I'm just not as bright as you guys. Thanks for trying to >> teach me the truth....errr...I mean 'elucidate me.'
>>> Maybe. I lived in this little hick town in Maine when I was a kid >>> and the Birchers pretty much took over the school board back in the >>> 60's, Scary bunch. It wasn't much fun to be labeled a 15 year old >>> Commie because I opposed the Vietnam war. Its strange to see >>> similar mindless flagwaving all >>> in the name of "fighting terrorism". Can't we fight terrorism and >>> not be idiots about it? Feels like deja vu all over again, Gary.
>> So you're saying that people who don't see it the way you do are >> idiots?
> I'm not gonna dignify that, Gary. I realize that this is a tactic you > use to deflect argument, and I refuse to go down that road.
>> FWIW. An old axiom. It is axiomatic that fanatics and extremists >> will consider even moderation as opposition and all opposition as >> flawed characters or stupid. Know you aren't an extremist or >> fanatic, that you are well, more than mainstream with 3/4's of the >> world in your corner as "anti US" (That's what you wrote up there). >> But Kai protested he wasn't anti US. So he's in the 1/4 that I'm >> in?
> Who said I am anti-US? Didn't I write earlier that being critical of > US policy does not equate to being anti-US. I think you are being a > tad passive-aggressive, Gary.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote: > I seriously doubt that but you can believe what you like. It takes > more than an 'outsider' unless you figure we're all brainwashed? I'm
Not all. But kindly explain why half the US population believed Iraq was directly involved in the WTC inident despite the complete absence of any evidence?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote: > I guess I'm just not as bright as you guys. Thanks for trying to > teach me the truth....errr...I mean 'elucidate me.'
I think you are. I just don't understand why you don't address points raised directly and succinctly.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:31:48 -0800, GaryE wrote (in message <cgoa30h2vp6jg3pjn5ceqf1nbc5tc90...@4ax.com>):
> It's not a matter of your high road dignification Grace. You used the > term idiots. Weaseling is what I see.
When people say that dissent against USian policies is the equivalent to supporting the Commies or the Terrorists, that is an idiotic argument. The Birchers used that scare tactic to fight anyone they disagreed with. Didn't the current "resident" do the same - "If you aren't with us, you're against us". Sorry if that offends you, Gary, but I like to call 'em as I sees 'em.
>>> FWIW. An old axiom. It is axiomatic that fanatics and extremists >>> will consider even moderation as opposition and all opposition as >>> flawed characters or stupid. Know you aren't an extremist or fanatic, >>> that you are well, more than mainstream with 3/4's of the world in >>> your corner as "anti US" (That's what you wrote up there). But Kai >>> protested he wasn't anti US. So he's in the 1/4 that I'm in?
>> Who said I am anti-US? Didn't I write earlier that being critical of US >> policy does not equate to being anti-US. I think you are being a tad >> passive-aggressive, Gary.
> You said 3/4's of the world are anti US. You still didn't supply me > with where you got that information. It's newsworthy and if I were in > a political campaign on the Democrat side, I would have that plastered > all over the place. I just figured you counted yourself in that > 3/4. But since you don't agree with what I say, then I'm passive- > aggressive? I don't even know what it means but it sounds like a > character defect. Is it really that difficult for you to deal with > disagreement without labeling someone with personal deficiencies??
Of course its possible, when its a principled discussion, but you appear to be incapable of that, Gary. I am pointing out my observations about your style of argument. Sorry you can't deal with it.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:16:50 -0800, Lech K. Lesiak wrote (in message <Pine.A41.4.05.10402191814480.26780-100...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>> I seriously doubt that but you can believe what you like. It takes >> more than an 'outsider' unless you figure we're all brainwashed? I'm
> Not all. But kindly explain why half the US population believed Iraq was > directly involved in the WTC inident despite the complete absence of any > evidence?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:23:02 -0800, Lech K. Lesiak wrote (in message <Pine.A41.4.05.10402191821160.26780-100...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>):
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>> I guess I'm just not as bright as you guys. Thanks for trying to >> teach me the truth....errr...I mean 'elucidate me.'
> I think you are. I just don't understand why you don't address points > raised directly and succinctly.
> Why the wordy avoidance of the issue?
> Cheers, > Lech
I think its because he buys into the Bircher argument, but is embarrassed to admit it. Gary likes to present himself as an iconoclast who questions conventional wisdom. In his heart of hearts though, he is right out of a Sinclair Lewis novel - conformist, small-town America. America - Love it or Leave it! My Country, Right or Wrong! I'll bet during the Vietnam era he even beat up a hippie or two.
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:06:04 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com> > wrote:
> >ciencies??
> >Of course its possible, when its a principled discussion, but you appear to > >be incapable of that, Gary. I am pointing out my observations about your > >style of argument. Sorry you can't deal with it.
> Of course anyone who takes you to the task is 'incapable' Grace. > That's you level of argument and it speaks for your integrity. Don't > cross a fanatic like you, right?
> Garbaby
Anyone remember the number of facial expressions that we humans have at our disposal in order to better communicate? Then there's body language, like a shrug etc. Trying to have a friendly exchange of ideas on Usenet is like walking through a friggin mine field. We are reduced to *one* method of communicating and even fairly routine topics can degenerate quickly into a slugfest. Having an invisible audience doesn't help at all either for a bunch of drunks. <G>
I've seen several examples today of things said that got the worst of several possible interpretations, none of which would have happened over lunch when we have a shrug, eye roll, chuckle or evil grin to go along with our outgoing pleasant demeanor.:))
Sometimes we need to count to ten and start over, unless of course the $#@&*&^%$#(*%^&$# just ain't worth the trouble. Fortunately, there aren't' many of those here.
Gramps The best mental exercise for relinquishing egotism is contemplating impermanence.
> evil grin to go along > with our outgoing pleasant demeanor.:))
Evil grins are a given in my posts.
Speaking of evil grins, I had a terrific idea on getting some press and stirring up the neighbors. If only there weren't so many damn trees in the way. See, around here there are a number of large, lighted crosses visible from the interstate - just a friendly reminder I suppose of - I don't know - nailing people to crosses. So I was thinking of how something like that might be countered. And I thought of a giant lighted devil's face with pointy hairline, pointy goatee and of course, prominent horns. That would probably get the cross erectors up in arms. And the back of my house is even visible from the interstate!
Now the hard part is overcoming two major obstacles. First are the trees I mentioned that would block the view. The easy solution would be to just whack them down - except they aren't on my lot. The second hurdle would be getting it past my wife. Hmm, this one requires some thoughtful study.
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:06:04 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com> > wrote:
>> ciencies??
>> Of course its possible, when its a principled discussion, but you appear >> to >> be incapable of that, Gary. I am pointing out my observations about your >> style of argument. Sorry you can't deal with it.
> Of course anyone who takes you to the task is 'incapable' Grace. > That's you level of argument and it speaks for your integrity. Don't > cross a fanatic like you, right?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:31:46 -0800, GaryE wrote (in message <7nva30903mr6pgujqcnbpsb3eh2idgh...@4ax.com>):
> You got no boundaries have you. When someone disagrees, it's down and > dirty innuendo, slander. You been bashing US for as long as I can > remember and when you get called on it, you get disengenuous and > claim, 'oh my just criticizing some US foreign policy..what's wrong > with that." You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck. And your > knee jerk reaction is always to the low road..."I'll bet..he even beat > up a hippie.." Jesus Christ, you are cornered aren't you rat?
> So this poll (?) tells you that half the people in the US are > brainwashed. Well, hell Lech, we need guys like you to straighten us > out. Lucky we found you on an AA newsgroup. I'll pass the word > around.
Gary, if you are simply going to dodge a direct question via ad hominem, don't waste the bandwidth.
You're not going to hurt my feelings, and it certainly does nothing for your position.
Lech K. Lesiak wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>> I seriously doubt that but you can believe what you like. It takes >> more than an 'outsider' unless you figure we're all brainwashed? I'm
> Not all. But kindly explain why half the US population believed Iraq > was directly involved in the WTC inident despite the complete absence > of any evidence?
> Cheers, > Lech
Let's put it ANOTHER way. Half the US population believed Iraq was NOT directly involved in the WTC incident despite the complete absence of any evidence.
Grace Hague wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:16:50 -0800, Lech K. Lesiak wrote > (in message > <Pine.A41.4.05.10402191814480.26780-100...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>):
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>>> I seriously doubt that but you can believe what you like. It takes >>> more than an 'outsider' unless you figure we're all brainwashed? >>> I'm
>> Not all. But kindly explain why half the US population believed >> Iraq was directly involved in the WTC inident despite the complete >> absence of any evidence?
>> Cheers, >> Lech
> Because their fearless leader said so.
> Grace
What "fearless" leaders do the liberal isolationists have? Answer: NONE.
Grace Hague wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:23:02 -0800, Lech K. Lesiak wrote > (in message > <Pine.A41.4.05.10402191821160.26780-100...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>):
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>>> I guess I'm just not as bright as you guys. Thanks for trying to >>> teach me the truth....errr...I mean 'elucidate me.'
>> I think you are. I just don't understand why you don't address >> points raised directly and succinctly.
>> Why the wordy avoidance of the issue?
>> Cheers, >> Lech
> I think its because he buys into the Bircher argument, but is > embarrassed to admit it. Gary likes to present himself as an > iconoclast who questions conventional wisdom. In his heart of hearts > though, he is right out of a Sinclair Lewis novel - conformist, > small-town America. America - Love it or Leave it! My Country, Right > or Wrong! I'll bet during the Vietnam era he even beat up a hippie > or two.
> Grace
Most hippies as I remember were far more interested in sex and drugs than in world peace. Not that there was anything the matter with sex, drugs and rock n roll, though.
GaryE wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:23:44 -0800, Grace Hague <gra...@spiritone.com> > wrote:
>> I think its because he buys into the Bircher argument, but is >> embarrassed to admit it. Gary likes to present himself as an >> iconoclast who questions conventional wisdom. In his heart of hearts >> though, he is right out of a Sinclair Lewis novel - conformist, >> small-town America. America - Love it or Leave it! My Country, Right >> or Wrong! I'll bet during the Vietnam era he even beat up a hippie >> or two.
> You got no boundaries have you. When someone disagrees, it's down and > dirty innuendo, slander. You been bashing US for as long as I can > remember and when you get called on it, you get disengenuous and > claim, 'oh my just criticizing some US foreign policy..what's wrong > with that." You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck. And your > knee jerk reaction is always to the low road..."I'll bet..he even beat > up a hippie.." Jesus Christ, you are cornered aren't you rat?
> Garbaby
Gary, they are typical liberals, blinded to reality by their rose-coloured glasses, into believing that everything is the U.S.'s fault.
Grace Hague wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:31:48 -0800, GaryE wrote > (in message <cgoa30h2vp6jg3pjn5ceqf1nbc5tc90...@4ax.com>):
>> It's not a matter of your high road dignification Grace. You used >> the term idiots. Weaseling is what I see.
> When people say that dissent against USian policies is the > equivalent to supporting the Commies or the Terrorists, that is an > idiotic argument. The Birchers used that scare tactic to fight anyone > they disagreed with. Didn't the current "resident" do the same - "If > you aren't with us, you're against us". Sorry if that offends you, > Gary, but I like to call 'em as I sees 'em.
>>>> FWIW. An old axiom. It is axiomatic that fanatics and extremists >>>> will consider even moderation as opposition and all opposition as >>>> flawed characters or stupid. Know you aren't an extremist or >>>> fanatic, that you are well, more than mainstream with 3/4's of the >>>> world in your corner as "anti US" (That's what you wrote up >>>> there). But Kai protested he wasn't anti US. So he's in the >>>> 1/4 that I'm in?
>>> Who said I am anti-US? Didn't I write earlier that being critical >>> of US policy does not equate to being anti-US. I think you are >>> being a tad passive-aggressive, Gary.
>> You said 3/4's of the world are anti US. You still didn't supply me >> with where you got that information. It's newsworthy and if I were >> in a political campaign on the Democrat side, I would have that >> plastered all over the place. I just figured you counted yourself >> in that 3/4. But since you don't agree with what I say, then I'm >> passive- aggressive? I don't even know what it means but it sounds >> like a character defect. Is it really that difficult for you to >> deal with disagreement without labeling someone with personal >> deficiencies??
> Of course its possible, when its a principled discussion, but you > appear to be incapable of that, Gary. I am pointing out my > observations about your style of argument. Sorry you can't deal with > it.
> Grace.
You don't have the experience, education or intelligence to comment on historical or political matters, Grace. Stick with program stuff, please.
Besides a seeming inability to accept much on faith, we often found ourselves handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice. Many of us have been so touchy that even casual reference to spiritual things make us bristle with antagonism. This sort of thinking had to be abandoned. Though some of us resisted, we found no great difficulty in casting aside such feelings. Faced with alcoholic destruction, we soon became as open minded on spiritual matters as we had tried to be on other questions. In this respect alcohol was a great persuader. It finally beat us into a state of reasonableness."
~Alcoholics Anonymous, 4th Edition, We Agnostics, pg. 47~
>> I wouldn't lecture Gary when YOU defend your country, Finland, >> allying itself with NAZI Germany.
> Shut up already, you idiot. Go back to defending your right to own and > distribute child pornography or something.
I was, I recall, defending the right of the PRIVATE user to download anything they want to, onto their PRIVATE computer, as long as hacking wasn't involved.
By the tone of Kai's reaction, it's obvious I struck close to the truth of the matter.
Lech K. Lesiak wrote: >>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, GaryE wrote:
>>So this poll (?) tells you that half the people in the US are >>brainwashed. Well, hell Lech, we need guys like you to straighten us >>out. Lucky we found you on an AA newsgroup. I'll pass the word >>around.
> Gary, if you are simply going to dodge a direct question via ad hominem, > don't waste the bandwidth.
> You're not going to hurt my feelings, and it certainly does nothing for > your position.
Well, he could use it as a showel and dig even further.
-- Kai
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." - General "Buck" Turgidson -
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:31:46 -0800, GaryE wrote > > claim, 'oh my just criticizing some US foreign policy..what's wrong > > with that." You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck. And your > > knee jerk reaction is always to the low road..."I'll bet..he even beat > > up a hippie.." Jesus Christ, you are cornered aren't you rat?
>>> So this poll (?) tells you that half the people in the US are >>> brainwashed. Well, hell Lech, we need guys like you to straighten >>> us out. Lucky we found you on an AA newsgroup. I'll pass the word >>> around.
>> Gary, if you are simply going to dodge a direct question via ad >> hominem, don't waste the bandwidth.
>> You're not going to hurt my feelings, and it certainly does nothing >> for your position.
> Well, he could use it as a showel and dig even further.
Lech K. Lesiak wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:31:46 -0800, GaryE wrote >>> claim, 'oh my just criticizing some US foreign policy..what's wrong >>> with that." You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck. And your >>> knee jerk reaction is always to the low road..."I'll bet..he even >>> beat up a hippie.." Jesus Christ, you are cornered aren't you rat?
>>Well, he could use it as a showel and dig even further.
> A showel? Is that a digging implement?
A spelling flame! Can you get more original than that?
Sinä olet niin uskomattoman typerä että on vaikea uskoa sen olevan mahdollista. Todennäköisesti joudut kuuntelemaan Walkmanista nauhaa joka kehottaa sisää- ja uloshengitykseen oikeassa rytmissä pysyäksesi hengissä.
-- Kai
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." - General "Buck" Turgidson -
|
