| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ilse |
Posted - June 08 2002 : 1:39:45 PM
In my newspaper today:
"The American Senate has agreed to a bill that under conditions authorizes military intervention in The Netherlands. Violence could be used to free American prisoners of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that will be located in The Hague.
ICC will try those responsible of crimes against humanity, regardless of the nationality of victims or culprits, if the country where the crimes were committed fails to do so. The US do not participate in ICC."
Now, is that any way of treating your old buddies????? 
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| richfed |
Posted - May 28 2003 : 05:47:15 AM
Ah, Lainey ... the human topic splitter ... |
| Lainey |
Posted - May 28 2003 : 12:32:47 AM
It's been off topic a long while (though still within 6 degrees in its own bizarre little way) despite scattered attempts to bring it back to the original questions;
1) Is the 'Hague Invasion Act' just blubbering hot air politicking, or is it an aggressive declaration of intimidation?
2) Which is more dangerous; the supra quam sovereignty mandate for justice of the ICC or the supra caput perpetual war/global domination policies of the New American Century neo-cons?
The question of cult vs religion; new thread ... |
| Bea |
Posted - May 27 2003 : 11:35:25 PM
HAHA, good one, Rich!!
Yes, a topic splitter would be a good idea as this is going OT big time!!
My experience with Jehova Witnesses has been mixed. I met some very nice ones who never tried to force their beliefs upon me and we just respected each other's ways ( although I felt sorry for one lady when she stepped out of a room because we celebrated a birthday). One of my closer friends was a JW and turned away from it due to some its harshness..I also remember a court case here in Southern Alberta where a father fought for his daughter to get a desperately needed blood transfusion..:(
My most recent experience was with two ladies that came to my door who were rather rude. I had politely informed them that I was happy with my church when one of them asked me about my denomination. I told them I was Christian Reformed which prompted them to say: Oh, first you were Christian and now you're reformed ????THAt did it for me.:):) Anyway, I patiently explained to them about the reformation, Calvinism etc.:) |
| richfed |
Posted - May 27 2003 : 7:12:52 PM
Some day, we're gonna devise a "topic splitter" for threads that get way off topic ... but, till that time:
When I lived in California, back in '74, some Jehovah's Witnesses came a-knockin, and purely out of boredom, I invited them in. For several weeks thereafter, they came every week for a "discussion." I think it was on Wednesdays. They were nice folks. Two ladies, I think, if I remember correctly - maybe not. Maybe it was a man & a woman. Anyway, we argued their philosophy quite vehemently.
They made no impression on me, apparently, as the only thing I can remember from our discussions is that they insisted it a sin to have long hair - a male, that is.
That did it for me!!!! |
| Theresa |
Posted - May 27 2003 : 07:33:57 AM
Not to claim to know a whole lot about the Jehovah's Witness, I am a little familiar with some of the things they allow. At school, they are not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance, they are not allowed to participate in any school parties, not even Christmas, they do no celebrate Christmas. My daughter's senior year in high school there was a young man on the baseball team who was Jehovah's Witness. The team was in the state championship game on Friday night, he came to bat just as the sun was beginning to set, steps to the plate, hits a homerun, goes to the dugout and gathers his equipment, leaves with his parents....and his team went on the win. You wouldn't meet a nicer fellow and family. And that's the extent of my dealings with them other than an occassional knock at the door. |
| Adele |
Posted - May 27 2003 : 04:29:10 AM
Thanks very much for that link Lainey, I will give it a serious read tonight.
quote:
You mean ... missing thinks?
Hehehehe..I have a lot of missing thinks, I think!!
quote:
Okay - Jehovah's Witnesses are neither mainstream nor a religion. They are a sect, a cult, an organization. And a deceptive organization at that.
Ok Lainey, I just HATE it when you beat around the bush...for once, could you just say what you think!!!  Seriously though, don't get me wrong, I am hardly ready to convert, just trying to form a fair and informed opinion here! But it does raise the question again, what is the difference between a religion and a cult...is it mind control? If so, doesn't all religion use an element of that? Maybe I should just get you two together to debate, it would be a lot easier! Hmm, any JW's lurking on the board like to come forward?!
HM |
| Lainey |
Posted - May 27 2003 : 01:42:37 AM
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ355.HTM
Adele, I think this one ought to keep you sufficiently tied-up for a spell. It's one of the best - a reposting of pro/con arguments that involved several persons & covers every plausible question on the subject & the counter arguments. Very, very good ...
quote:
The thing that I have REALLY learned though, is how great the gaps are in my own understanding of the theory of evolution, and I have doing rather a lot of website reading to try and fill some of those gaps.
You mean ... missing thinks?
quote:
Actually, I am having fun with it, my friend was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and although lapsed (can you be a lapsed Jehovah's Witness?!) he still believes wholly in the teachings of that religion. He is very knowledgeable about religion in general, and able to maintain a very good discussion - I am really enjoying it.
Well now, Adele ..... if he still believes wholly in the "teachings of that religion" he wouldn't be a lapsed believer, he'd simply be a lazy believer. And, given the mind controls, public shunning, purposefully humiliating reprimands, & disfellowship so critical & so implemented within this organization, no - one can not be a lapsed Jehovah's Witness.
quote:
After reading up a little, I am beginning to think that Jehovah's Witnesses get a really bad press compared to other mainstream religions...what do you think?
 You really want me to answer?
Okay - Jehovah's Witnesses are neither mainstream nor a religion. They are a sect, a cult, an organization. And a deceptive organization at that. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the so-called "teachings" but for starters, they are not, despite popular myth which the WatchTower sells, Christian. If not Christian - why do they quote from & make the sales pitch from the Gospels in which one reads the Testament of Jesus Christ, Lord & Savior - Son of God/Son of Man - & why would they "invite" you to "join" them in Bible Study during which there is no Bible actually studied? (Well, there is a neatly bound copy usually set out on the coffee table during study time but it stays as it lays while WatchTower tracts are studied in its stead.) Hey - don't get me wrong. They dress nicely, they have impeccable manners, & they are the most skilled salespersons this side of a poker game. So, no, though I know they've not been well received in various European countries, I don't think they're getting a bum rap at all.
quote:
The agreement was made as a result of the U.S.' efforts to tighten security following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and in the wake of the passing of the U.S. Aviation and Transport Security Act.
Why does the air have the smell of the Reichstag Fire???? |
| Adele |
Posted - May 23 2003 : 02:39:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
*GASP!!!!!!* ... are you sure you're allowed to have good discussion off board? It sounds downright dangerous. Selfish, too.
But - a little late to prevent your browser burnout syndrome - have you found any that are satisfactory? There are several excellent sites that present & argue both positions. I know I've got some bookmarked ... somewhere ... let me know if you still need 'em!
Well, I have to admit, I could use your debating skills on this one! Actually, I am having fun with it, my friend was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and although lapsed (can you be a lapsed Jehovah's Witness?!) he still believes wholly in the teachings of that religion. He is very knowledgeable about religion in general, and able to maintain a very good discussion - I am really enjoying it. The thing that I have REALLY learned though, is how great the gaps are in my own understanding of the theory of evolution, and I have doing rather a lot of website reading to try and fill some of those gaps.
Anyway, in answer to your question I HAVE found some good websites, not exactly what I am looking for, but plenty to get me started! If there is any site in particular you think might be helpful to me, I could still use the link though!
HM
PS After reading up a little, I am beginning to think that Jehovah's Witnesses get a really bad press compared to other mainstream religions...what do you think? |
| Ilse |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 6:20:10 PM
Well, when I started this thread I found it somewhat bewildering and amusing, but I'm not laughing anymore.
On the screening of visitors this from Network World Fusion, May 6th
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0506grouppasse.html
Groups: Passenger data is flying to U.S. against EU laws
By Scarlet Pruitt
IDG News Service, 05/06/03
A coalition of European privacy groups kicked off a campaign this week to ground the transfer of airline passenger data to U.S. authorities, claiming that the information exchange flies in the face of European Union privacy laws.
"There are no safeguards or restrictions on these data transfers," said Maurice Wessling, president of the European Digital Rights (EDRI) privacy coalition which represents 10 privacy and civil rights groups from seven EU countries.
The hubbub sprouts from an agreement that the European Commission (EC) reached with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency last March, in which it agreed to hand over online access to data from all Europe-based carriers that fly to, from or through the U.S.
The agreement was made as a result of the U.S.' efforts to tighten security following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and in the wake of the passing of the U.S. Aviation and Transport Security Act.
The problem, according to the privacy groups, is that the data transfer agreement goes against privacy laws requiring that transfer of data outside of the EU only take place when there is a similar level of privacy protection put in place, according to Wessling. The civil rights advocates claim that there are no limits on the sharing or retention of the data among U.S. agencies and therefore passengers' rights are affected.
"This information could go far beyond antiterrorism measures ... it could be used for anything," Wessling said.
Representatives for the EC were not immediately available to comment on the matter.
With its campaign, EDRI is hoping to make airline passengers aware of the data transfer and encourage them to write the EC with complaints. The EC could then investigate the complaints and rule that there is no legal basis for the transfers, according to Wessling.
According to the U.S.-based privacy group the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the EC is currently negotiating with the U.S. to restrict some access to passenger data in an effort to protect citizens' privacy. It remains to be seen, however, which compromises are agreed upon.
Representatives for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to immediately comment Tuesday.
The European privacy groups' campaign represents one in a series of backlashes against the U.S.' new antiterrorism laws, which have received flak from civil rights groups that say that they do more to curtail privacy than tighten security.
U.S. authorities argue, however, that they have worked to both tighten security and safeguard privacy.
|
| Lainey |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 5:32:20 PM
quote:
Bosnia Pledges Not to Surrender Americans to New International Criminal Court
17 May 2003
Bosnia-Herzegovina and the United States have signed an agreement under which Bosnia pledged not to surrender Americans to the new International Criminal Court in The Hague.
U.S. Ambassador to Sarajevo Clifford Bond and Bosnian Justice Minister Slobodan Kovac signed the treaty Friday. American Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was on hand in Sarajevo for the signing during a visit to the Bosnian capital.
Sarajevo was the first stop of the U.S. official's European trip that will also take him to Kosovo, Macedonia, France and Romania.
The signing came despite urging from human rights organization Amnesty International not to endorse the agreement. In a statement, the organization said no one - regardless of nationality - should enjoy impunity for the worst crimes known to humanity.
The U.S. government said on Tuesday it will cut off military funding to countries that fail to sign such an agreement.
State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said Tuesday legislation passed last year, the American Service Members Protection Act, prohibits military assistance after July 1 to any country that has not signed the agreement.
The Bush administration has renounced the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, fearing Americans overseas could be targeted for politically motivated prosecutions by hostile nations.
The United States has negotiated separate agreements with a number of countries, including Albania and Romania.
The International Criminal Court, inaugurated in March at The Hague, has the power to prosecute war crimes and violations of human rights.
Source: VOA News
Now, I wonder where we are regarding the Hague Invasion Act? Given the past year's upping the ante mood, & the Fed's announcement it will begin fingerprinting & charting MOST visitors to the US, what should we be expecting next? |
| Bea |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 4:40:15 PM
Lainey, the "or else " may be close to the gallows...:)Or tarred and feathered??? |
| Lainey |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 4:26:12 PM
quote:
Lainey, I am having a pretty good Evolution vs Religion discussion off the board - gee, I am just such a glutton for punishment, aren't I?!! I was hoping to find a site which gave arguments for both sides - do you happen to know of any? (Before I spend hours searching...)
*GASP!!!!!!* ... are you sure you're allowed to have good discussion off board? It sounds downright dangerous. Selfish, too.
But - a little late to prevent your browser burnout syndrome - have you found any that are satisfactory? There are several excellent sites that present & argue both positions. I know I've got some bookmarked ... somewhere ... let me know if you still need 'em!
quote:
Lainey, as you are well aware I enjoy your posts tremendously. The wealth of information and your wit. But I also like them for another reason: you can post things us Non-Americans wouldn't be able to post as we know what the consequences would be..
Oh yeah ... YOU guys get told to butt out, or else - I merely hang for treason. Oh joy. |
| Bea |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 10:51:51 AM
<<<I don't mean to imply there's something wrong or negative about non-participation. Surely, surely not! Or fear of debate? Not for everyone, these sometimes ruthless face-offs on philosophical, political, theological, social *issues* & the opportunity for hanging one's self is SO ... totally ... real.
It's more about expectations & compromises that can never materialize - it's that *fellowship* thing ... or a desire for unity that doesn't/shouldn't exist. I think part of what I'm referring to (complex, complex, complex ... I don't know how I'm gonna write a separate coherent post about all these matters - but I'll try) is the idea that thought or perceptions must be homogenized in the interest of fellowship. The problem with this sort of *fellowship* is that it exacts too high a price ...
>>>
Isn't that the truth..
Lainey, as you are well aware I enjoy your posts tremendously. The wealth of information and your wit. But I also like them for another reason: you can post things us Non-Americans wouldn't be able to post as we know what the consequences would be..
Having said that, Belgian chocolates anyone????
Huggy I also got a kick out of drive-by-postings.. |
| Adele |
Posted - May 20 2003 : 02:07:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
GG,
I hate being so verbose - it makes me feel soooooo Cooperish (and wasn't he a great American social critic who often evoked hostility of his fellow Americans because he warned, criticized, & questioned the cultural-political climate of his day???).
We wouldn't have you any other way, Lainey!  Besides, verbose doesn't mean you waste your words!!
quote:
Just want to clarify BEFORE Huggy (who's been a total clarification freak lately, isn't that right, Huggy?) comes along & makes me do it anyway.
Sighsssss....clarification freak, huh? I think it just sounds better than "I don't understanddddddddd  " LOL!!!
quote:
I don't mean to imply there's something wrong or negative about non-participation. Surely, surely not! Or fear of debate? Not for everyone, these sometimes ruthless face-offs on philosophical, political, theological, social *issues* & the opportunity for hanging one's self is SO ... totally ... real.
It's more about expectations & compromises that can never materialize - it's that *fellowship* thing ... or a desire for unity that doesn't/shouldn't exist. I think part of what I'm referring to (complex, complex, complex ... I don't know how I'm gonna write a separate coherent post about all these matters - but I'll try) is the idea that thought or perceptions must be homogenized in the interest of fellowship. The problem with this sort of *fellowship* is that it exacts too high a price ...
So - what did I just say? I dunno ..... something about human interaction & ain't life grand?
Hmmm..a new 'philosophy' forum in the making, perhaps?!!
quote:
An aside; Diana aka Gadget Girl is a newly graduated graduate - again!!!! Three cheers for GG - who I wish would share her smarts a tad more often.
WTG GG!!! You kept that pretty quiet!! Congratulations
Lainey, I am having a pretty good Evolution vs Religion discussion off the board - gee, I am just such a glutton for punishment, aren't I?!! I was hoping to find a site which gave arguments for both sides - do you happen to know of any? (Before I spend hours searching...)
HM
PS Am still laughing at the term 'drive-by postings' - am getting the greatest visuals on that one!! |
| Ilse |
Posted - May 19 2003 : 4:33:50 PM
Hey GG!
Congratulations!!!!! |
| Lainey |
Posted - May 19 2003 : 4:14:14 PM
GG,
I hate being so verbose - it makes me feel soooooo Cooperish (and wasn't he a great American social critic who often evoked hostility of his fellow Americans because he warned, criticized, & questioned the cultural-political climate of his day???).
Just want to clarify BEFORE Huggy (who's been a total clarification freak lately, isn't that right, Huggy?) comes along & makes me do it anyway.
I don't mean to imply there's something wrong or negative about non-participation. Surely, surely not! Or fear of debate? Not for everyone, these sometimes ruthless face-offs on philosophical, political, theological, social *issues* & the opportunity for hanging one's self is SO ... totally ... real.
It's more about expectations & compromises that can never materialize - it's that *fellowship* thing ... or a desire for unity that doesn't/shouldn't exist. I think part of what I'm referring to (complex, complex, complex ... I don't know how I'm gonna write a separate coherent post about all these matters - but I'll try) is the idea that thought or perceptions must be homogenized in the interest of fellowship. The problem with this sort of *fellowship* is that it exacts too high a price ...
So - what did I just say? I dunno ..... something about human interaction & ain't life grand?
An aside; Diana aka Gadget Girl is a newly graduated graduate - again!!!! Three cheers for GG - who I wish would share her smarts a tad more often. |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - May 19 2003 : 09:38:09 AM
Disinterest???
Dislike????
NEVER!!!!!
Fear????
You betcha!!!
I just never seem to know enough about the issues (can't read ALL the medical journals AND ALL the political articles around ya know!  ) to add anything to the discussion. Soooo, I enjoy reading the sapient offerings of the rest of yous! I apologize for being a noncontributor here, but I do learn a great deal from these discussions! Thanks for all the thought-rich postings!
GG 
|
| Lainey |
Posted - May 19 2003 : 12:42:44 AM
quote:
How can you say that, Lainey?
I like waffles.
I even like Freedom Fries.
Hey, me, too!!!! And, I can still jump ... just can't bend over all that well anymore.
I don't know what to say, Duncans, but you're waffling so much ... tea?
quote:
Not denying that at all, but.... Could it be we also mimic the state of international diplomacy and relations in the world? It's never been as polarized as it is now.
Isn't this a 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question? If we are mimicking then my sense of why that is would be there is a very disturbing trend towards hyper-nationalism that has supplanted what was once thought to be patriotism - & not many seem able (or willing?) to discern the difference.
quote:
Seriously though, you know me...and you KNOW I would never sit back and stay quiet if I had something to say! I just think that you, Scott and Ilse were doing a far better job of debating this issue than I. As far as uneasiness goes, I think mine stems more from getting the distinct feeling that there are things going on of which I am unaware, and am not sure whether I am putting myself in the crossfire position. I don't see how this particular topic is any more emotive than any other we have discussed here.
Just as an aside...I love this forum..I feel like I have learned so much here, and I have enjoyed a lot of the topics and posts very much. But the previous post from Scott reminded me that it is all about not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it. There are ways of putting your point across with dignity and consideration which will inspire respect from others, regardless of their own personal opinion. That is the most important thing...otherwise there is no debate, nothing to be gained other than bruises from the butting of heads!
This forum ... uneasiness ... post 9/11 fall-out ... imaginary problems ... fear of debate ... disdain for opposition ... drive-by posting ... politicizing the exchange rather than the issues ... personalizing the issues rather than the exchange ... wag the dog controversies ... all are things on my mind, Adele, & I want to talk about them in a post regarding the Lion's Den & why it attracts so much attention it's become chic to declare one's disinterest & dislike of THIS forum in just about every OTHER forum. Think "the lady doth protest too much"? Sic semper tyranus!
I'm still trying to collect my thoughts on this. Bear with me ... |
| richfed |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 5:39:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
How can you say that, Lainey?
I like waffles.
I even like Freedom Fries.
Hey, me, too!!!! And, I can still jump ... just can't bend over all that well anymore.  |
| Ilse |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 2:11:40 PM
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all: I don't mean to be cryptic, but I'm sure some of you have noticed that people who normally get along very well and have large areas of commonality are recently at each others' throats.
The impact of 9/11 and the aftermath appear to me to be the catalyst and touchstone for this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does. Could it be that 9/11, while initially bringing about a healthy camaraderie & brief 'good will to men' reaction, was, once the dust had settled, also the beginning of a huge polarization precisely because of the way the aftermath unfolded? More on that ...
Not denying that at all, but.... Could it be we also mimic the state of international diplomacy and relations in the world? It's never been as polarized as it is now.
The "take Nato headquarters away" threat is so illustrative. Really, having followed the developments around this law (which has been around for about 10 years), I had no doubt that at the minute these charges were brought the Belgium government started looking for a way out and get rid of it. They didn't need this kind of "encouragement" at all. |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 09:59:37 AM
How can you say that, Lainey?
I like waffles.
I even like Freedom Fries. |
| Adele |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 07:26:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
quote:
And now, I just want to sit back, and enjoy the debate!!
No way ... that's not fair, Huggy. You think this is a spectator sport now, even after you've thrown down your two shillings? Uh uh. Once a gladiator, always a gladiator.
Gladiator, huh?! Ahhhhh the images that conjures up....
Seriously though, you know me...and you KNOW I would never sit back and stay quiet if I had something to say! I just think that you, Scott and Ilse were doing a far better job of debating this issue than I. As far as uneasiness goes, I think mine stems more from getting the distinct feeling that there are things going on of which I am unaware, and am not sure whether I am putting myself in the crossfire position. I don't see how this particular topic is any more emotive than any other we have discussed here.
Just as an aside...I love this forum..I feel like I have learned so much here, and I have enjoyed a lot of the topics and posts very much. But the previous post from Scott reminded me that it is all about not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it. There are ways of putting your point across with dignity and consideration which will inspire respect from others, regardless of their own personal opinion. That is the most important thing...otherwise there is no debate, nothing to be gained other than bruises from the butting of heads!
HM  |
| Lainey |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 02:56:23 AM
Now I've got an awful lot of thoughts on *things*- some, raised here, reach too far beyond the topic to continue within this thread so I'll put them neatly in their own corner.
Ilse, thanks for the update. The decision by the Belgian Court to decline the Franks Case & instead refer it to an American court bears out what we were saying regarding the nature & amendments of the court. An interesting aspect to this has been somewhat overlooked, however, & that is the Court's previous indictment of former general- now Prime Minister - Ariel Sharon as a war criminal for his part in the '82 massacres of Palestinians in Lebanon & the citing of that indictment as an example of "political" abuse that led to the most recent amendments. On the contrary, the Sharon case, which did cause "diplomatic tensions" - another way of saying it brought threats & intimidation, much like the US threat to take away NATO's base from Brussels - offers a strong argument IN FAVOR of international jurisdiction regarding war crimes as the state of Israel's own courts also found Ariel Sharon guilty but have refused to punish or admonish the man whose nickname is not "the Butcher" for nothing. Instead of penalty, Ariel Sharon received the blessings of Israel, theoretically a "justice state," by election as Prime Minister. With refusal of countries to hold accountable a person they have, by their own courts & laws, found guilty of war crimes, in the interest of human rights & protection of vulnerable peoples an international court might be said to be more necessary today than ever before.
quote:
I didn't mean to imply you were being condescending, Lainey, though I can see how it would come across that way. Sorry, poor choice of words.
I was actually responding to, yes, a sense that there may be some common ground with regard to this test of what I believe is more a matter of the concept of universal jurisdiction than international jurisdiction.
(Not particularly to Lainey) I've been trying to sort through some of what makes me uneasy with the discussion of these issues, and I don't have a handle on it yet, but I think part of it is that there seems to be an expectation that things should be "fair". But I need to think about it some.
In that case ... permission granted.
I have my own observations regarding why there is a general uneasiness with these discussions but will put them in a separate post. However, one issue you've touched upon - fairness, or an expectation of it - is interesting. I, for one, don't expect fairness & I don't know if my opinions seem to suggest that. What I do expect is justice, honesty, & consistency, especially by those who claim to be champions of freedom. If a nation, for example, repeatedly cites international "rule of law" as causus belli then it damn well better expect to be held accountable to that same international rule of law itself. In the current theatres around the world that is not the case. Instead, we're seeing phoney indignation & an ever growing list of 'terrorists, enemies, harborers, rogue nations, invisible weapons, accusations, threats, & plan B, C, & D causus belli' as transparent justification for global aggression. Fairness? No. Accountabilty? Yes - most definitely.
quote:
To all: I don't mean to be cryptic, but I'm sure some of you have noticed that people who normally get along very well and have large areas of commonality are recently at each others' throats.
The impact of 9/11 and the aftermath appear to me to be the catalyst and touchstone for this.
Yes it does. Could it be that 9/11, while ini |
| Bea |
Posted - May 17 2003 : 7:07:52 PM
Due to a sports injury I am a bit laid up and can't respond as swiftly as needed..
In general I avoid confrontations and only say/post something if I really can't avoid it anymore..:)A proper discussion shouldn't include low blows to a certain individual/nation because it really takes away from the initial issue and consequently weakens it. To my knowledge this is a board frequented by people from all walks of life and different nationalities . Some may post and some may lurk. I enjoy it tremendously when people from Europe give their input and report things from a different angle as the news sources we are exposed to in North America are a bit onesided ( Lainey gave us excellent proof of that). Put it this way : I'd hate to see any of these posters ( or potential ones) go away because of careless, derogatory remarks. And- I don't recall any of our European posters ever stepping on any "North American " toes. Surely we can return the courtesy? Plus, it makes life more peaceful and stressless. And yes, I have bitten my tongue many times ( umm.. has the bleeding stopped yet?)as well.As a matter of fact I am even doing it now...:)
|
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 17 2003 : 6:14:24 PM
To Bea: I can only clarify to a degree, Huggy, since clarification is what I'm having difficulty with. It's not the issues that make me uneasy. I am uneasy with the discussion (and I don't really mean just here), but the question is why?
To all: I don't mean to be cryptic, but I'm sure some of you have noticed that people who normally get along very well and have large areas of commonality are recently at each others' throats.
The impact of 9/11 and the aftermath appear to me to be the catalyst and touchstone for this.
Frankly, my visceral response on learning of the lawsuit was precisely in accord with what Sgt. Munro verbalized. It may have been impolitic of him to put it out in mixed company, but then, that's never stopped him before. ;)
I believe Rich shares similar feelings, though couching them more gently.
Perhaps it's not entirely coincidental that the three of us are white (I think) American males who have been around for a few years.
Ilse: Thanks for the update. Perhaps the court will limit it's attention to [Scott bites tongue]. You see, the U.S. can take a minimalist approach to such things.
|
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
