[I] The peoples' flag ...
Gideon Hallett
I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of
the Labour Party as is:
"Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member
for 60 years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted,
"That's a lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference
address.
...
A second delegate was expelled for complaining at the treatment of
the first heckler.
Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only remain
[in Iraq] with their consent."
To paraphrase Brecht; given that the Party has clearly forfeited the
confidence of the government, might it not be simpler for the
government to dissolve the Party and elect another?
Gideon.
--
(((( | ====diog...@freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
Orjan Westin
> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of
> the Labour Party as is:
>
> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
> Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
> government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
Yes, that's an interesting way of putting it. Of course, it's concievably
true now (since Haliburton are not AFAIK contributing to the Labour
coffers), but I wonder if that was the reason to be there even before there
was an elected Iraqi government. I mean, they didn't want to help the
previously elected (okay, so it wasn't a fair election, but Saddam was,
officially, elected) government to do the same...
> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member
> for 60 years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted,
> "That's a lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference
> address.
OMG
> A second delegate was expelled for complaining at the treatment of
> the first heckler.
Quite. Democracy in action.
> Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only remain
> [in Iraq] with their consent."
There are a fair few Iraqis who does not give their consent. Presumably,
the "their" in his statement refers to the government that is holding the
fate of Iraq in its hands.
But... would you mind giving a source for this piece of news?
Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations
Kegs
> Gideon Hallett wrote:
[snip labour ejecting hecklers]
>> Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only remain
>> [in Iraq] with their consent."
>
> There are a fair few Iraqis who does not give their consent. Presumably,
> the "their" in his statement refers to the government that is holding the
> fate of Iraq in its hands.
>
> But... would you mind giving a source for this piece of news?
Probably every single decent UK news site, try the guardian tomorrow,
or:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
"You live and learn. At any rate, you live." (Douglas Adams)
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote:
>Gideon Hallett wrote:
>> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of
>> the Labour Party as is:
>>
>> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
>> Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
>> government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
>
>> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member
>> for 60 years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted,
>> "That's a lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference
>> address.
>
>OMG
[...]
>
>But... would you mind giving a source for this piece of news?
I've just watched it on BBC News 24.
The obviously elderly man was dragged out of his seat by his shoulders,
while the chap next to him - apparently compaining about his treatment -
was mobbed by three *very* chunky 'stewards' and also dragged off.
It was *utterly* over the top and appalling.
There were also (later?) shots of someone in a suit forceably manhandling a
cameraman out of the way while someone out of shot screamed "Leave me
alone!"
I'm deeply ashamed of my government and my country at the moment.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
The Stainless Steel Cat
Kegs <james....@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>"Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com> writes:
>
>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>
>[snip labour ejecting hecklers]
>
>>> Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only remain
>>> [in Iraq] with their consent."
>>
>> There are a fair few Iraqis who does not give their consent. Presumably,
>> the "their" in his statement refers to the government that is holding the
>> fate of Iraq in its hands.
>>
>> But... would you mind giving a source for this piece of news?
>
>Probably every single decent UK news site, try the guardian tomorrow,
>or:-
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
Note that on the photograph on that page, the chap in the suit looks like
he's leaning over the elderly gent having a quiet word in his ear. If you
see the video however, you can see that he's actually grabbing him by both
shoulders and is about to lift him bodily out of his seat.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
news:BF60AB709...@atuin.demon.co.uk:
> I've just watched it on BBC News 24.
>
> The obviously elderly man was dragged out of his seat by
> his shoulders, while the chap next to him - apparently
> compaining about his treatment - was mobbed by three *very*
> chunky 'stewards' and also dragged off.
Erith and Thamesmead constituency party chairman Steve
Forrest.
> It was *utterly* over the top and appalling.
>
> There were also (later?) shots of someone in a suit
> forceably manhandling a cameraman out of the way while
> someone out of shot screamed "Leave me alone!"
>
> I'm deeply ashamed of my government and my country at the
> moment.
Also, Austin Mitchell MP, off of "The News Quiz" had his
camera wiped.
Apparently the Labour Party is issuing an apology about the
way Mr Wolfgang was treated, after nearly everyone apart from
Straw and Blair complained. The apology is just for the *way*
in which he was removed, as "The Labour Party reserves its
rights to remove from the conference site people who cause a
persistent disturbance".
My Mum says that a Labour Party Conference which doesn't allow
heckling does not fit her definition of a Labour Party
Conference.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
"So if ye're an alien, how come ye've got a Southern accent?"
"Lots of planets have a South, Jamie."
-Conversations that never happened, no. 3
The Stainless Steel Cat
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Apparently the Labour Party is issuing an apology about the
>way Mr Wolfgang was treated, after nearly everyone apart from
>Straw and Blair complained. The apology is just for the *way*
>in which he was removed, as "The Labour Party reserves its
>rights to remove from the conference site people who cause a
>persistent disturbance".
And I now read that the "Terrorism Act" was used to stop Mr Wolfgang
getting back into the hall.
Yes, you read it right, *The Terrorism Act* was used on an 82-year-old man
who had shouted "Nonsense" at a member of his government in a semi-public
place.
Is there any chance of getting out of this very crowded handbasket? I'm not
sure where it's going but it seems to be getting very warm...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> In article <Xns96DFD219...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Apparently the Labour Party is issuing an apology about the
>>way Mr Wolfgang was treated, after nearly everyone apart
>>from Straw and Blair complained. The apology is just for
>>the *way* in which he was removed, as "The Labour Party
>>reserves its rights to remove from the conference site
>>people who cause a persistent disturbance".
>
> And I now read that the "Terrorism Act" was used to stop Mr
> Wolfgang getting back into the hall.
>
> Yes, you read it right, *The Terrorism Act* was used on an
> 82-year-old man who had shouted "Nonsense" at a member of
> his government in a semi-public place.
Well, it's nice that Mr Straw reassured us the Government was
fighting for democracy *somewhere*...
Rocky Frisco
I think if you wait just a little bit longer, our "W" will eventually do
something so totally overtly disgusting that even braindead people like
your Tony-wony and Jackasstraw will quit trying to imitate him. It
amazes me that the UK keeps trying to imitate the absolutely worst
aspects of 'Merkin culture while ignoring the good aspects so carefully.
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
The World's Best Daily News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/
Rock onstage with JJ Cale and E. Clapton: http://tinyurl.com/3modw
James Mitchelhill
>
> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of the
> Labour Party as is:
>
> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
> Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
> government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
>
> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member for 60
> years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted, "That's a
> lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference address.
And the fallout is:
(from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm>)
"I'm going to personally apologise to him," Mr McCartney said. "I'm
going to personally meet him if he takes the opportunity."
But Mr McCartney said Mr Wolfgang would not be allowed back into the
conference, which ends on Thursday.
...
That's party chairman, Ian McCartney offering to meet a member of his
party (who everyone admits has been badly mistreated) *if* he actively
seeks a meeting.
Also, how exactly does one meet someone impersonally?
Oh, and they're going to apologise but not actually let him back in, which
strikes me as slightly insincere.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Richard Bos
> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of
> the Labour Party as is:
>
> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
> Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
> government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
>
> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member
> for 60 years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted,
> "That's a lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference
> address.
I just saw a few short images of this on Newsnight. A political party
who does that to its own members does not deserve respect. It does not
deserve any votes, either, from nobody. In fact, it does not deserve
anything better than the deepest contempt.
> To paraphrase Brecht; given that the Party has clearly forfeited the
> confidence of the government, might it not be simpler for the
> government to dissolve the Party and elect another?
Or vice versa. If the real Labour MPs - if there are some left after all
these years of New Speak, sorry, Labour - have any balls or guts,
they'll bail out of the party and start their own, more democratic
party. But frankly, from what I've seen, they would be too FUDded up to
do so, and if they aren't, from the comments I've read from UK voters,
those would be too FUDded up to vote for anything but the two branches
of the main party.
Richard
Nigel Stapley
> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of
> the Labour Party as is:
>
> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
> Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
> government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
>
> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member
> for 60 years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted,
> "That's a lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference
> address.
>
> ...
>
> A second delegate was expelled for complaining at the treatment of
> the first heckler.
>
> Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only remain
> [in Iraq] with their consent."
>
>
> To paraphrase Brecht; given that the Party has clearly forfeited the
> confidence of the government, might it not be simpler for the
> government to dissolve the Party and elect another?
>
I've just watched the video of it. Absolutely ****ing disgraceful.
And how bitterly ironic that the victim of this obscene behaviour had
come to this country as a youth to *flee* political persecution.
Follow that with the violent ejection of someone who was trying to
protect the elderly gentleman from these bouncers, and the wiping of
Austin Mitchell's camera (he's an *MP*, FFS!), and one's boiling blood
suddenly turns to ice.
We seem to have the worst of it all now: a government of corporate
puppets with the attitude of Blackshirts led by someone at the centre of
a self-perpetuating personality cult.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Eric Jarvis
<dhec9r$kef$1...@groundhog.korenwolf.net>:
>
> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of
> the Labour Party as is:
>
> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
> Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
> government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
>
> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member
> for 60 years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted,
> "That's a lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference
> address.
>
> ...
>
> A second delegate was expelled for complaining at the treatment of
> the first heckler.
>
> Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only remain
> [in Iraq] with their consent."
>
>
> To paraphrase Brecht; given that the Party has clearly forfeited the
> confidence of the government, might it not be simpler for the
> government to dissolve the Party and elect another?
>
Of course one could be grateful that so far they haven't got around to
completely doing away with elected delegates at conference. I'm pretty
certain that there are some who would have preferred it to simply be
ministers speaking to invited guests.
I'm not sure that "democratic" and "stable" are compatible goals as such.
I've a lot more time for the former than the latter. People who think
"stability" is important are too often defending their current position of
privilege. I think it's pretty clear which of the two New Labour(tm) sees
as the priority.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Gideon
news:3q04g8F...@individual.net:
> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful
>> encapsulation of the Labour Party as is:
>>
>> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party
>> conference Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help
>> the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and
>> stable nation".
>
> Yes, that's an interesting way of putting it. Of course, it's
> concievably true now .., but I wonder if that was
> the reason to be there even before there was an elected Iraqi
> government. I mean, they didn't want to help the previously
> elected ... government to do the same...
What they're saying is that, now they're there, they have a duty
to support the government they helped to install in the first
place.
Which, of course, is carte blanche for any villainy you can think
of.
>> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party
>> member for 60 years, was bundled out by security guards after
>> he shouted, "That's a lie," during the foreign secretary's
>> keynote conference address.
>
> OMG
What I did not know at the time was that:
a) Walter Wolfgang was prevented from re-entering the hall under
the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
b) He will not be allowed back into the conference - as the
Labour Party 'has a responsibility to remove people who create a
"persistent disturbance" '
(Obviously, one strike and you're out, then.)
c) The second dissenter was allegedly rescued by the police from
the conference security staff, who were subjecting him to
physical assault.
>> A second delegate was expelled for complaining at the
>> treatment of the first heckler.
>
> Quite. Democracy in action.
>
>> Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only
>> remain [in Iraq] with their consent."
>
> There are a fair few Iraqis who does not give their consent.
> Presumably, the "their" in his statement refers to the
> government that is holding the fate of Iraq in its hands.
Since they're all either insurgents, terrorists, or terrorist
sympathisers, their views do not apparently count.
> But... would you mind giving a source for this piece of news?
My apologies; I completely overlooked that in my indignation.
My source was the Guardian's website; the URL with the current
version of the story as at
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1580266,00.html
Gideon.
Paul E. Jamison
"Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
news:fRD_e.35159$tB5.30320@okepread06...
> The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns96DFD219...@130.133.1.4>,
> > Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Apparently the Labour Party is issuing an apology about the
> >>way Mr Wolfgang was treated, after nearly everyone apart from
> >>Straw and Blair complained. The apology is just for the *way*
> >>in which he was removed, as "The Labour Party reserves its
> >>rights to remove from the conference site people who cause a
> >>persistent disturbance".
> >
> > And I now read that the "Terrorism Act" was used to stop Mr Wolfgang
> > getting back into the hall.
> >
> > Yes, you read it right, *The Terrorism Act* was used on an 82-year-old
man
> > who had shouted "Nonsense" at a member of his government in a
semi-public
> > place.
> >
> > Is there any chance of getting out of this very crowded handbasket? I'm
not
> > sure where it's going but it seems to be getting very warm...
>
> I think if you wait just a little bit longer, our "W" will eventually do
> something so totally overtly disgusting that even braindead people like
> your Tony-wony and Jackasstraw will quit trying to imitate him. It
> amazes me that the UK keeps trying to imitate the absolutely worst
> aspects of 'Merkin culture while ignoring the good aspects so carefully.
>
But how overtly disgusting will it have to be before W loses what little
support he still has in the US? It saddens me how many people here still
insist that he's doing a good job. I figure they're either completely taken
in or else they stand to gain something.
I'd like to get out of the handbasket too.
Paul
--
"Who reads, learns, lives the Ferret Way becomes keeper
of light, ennobling outer worlds from one within."
- a prophecy from the Ancients
Keith Neilson
I reckon that if enough sane people clubbed together to build an
economical way of getting out of the handbasket (this lovely little blue
and green globe we call home, which is getting less and less lovely by
the minute), we can all bugger off and colonise the moon and watch the
lightshow when the whole shebang implodes.
You might not think that this is a very sane idea. Nevertheless it needs
to be done, and soon. Either before we wipe ourselves out or the
universe does it for us.
Think how great it would be to be watching the nightside of the earth
when the power finally fails, all those little lights going out in a
wave across the face of the planet, as houses of cards come tumbling
down and humanity reverts to barbarism.
If I ever get the chance, I'm leaving. Theres a whole universe out there
for us to ruin, why restrict ourselves to one little planet ;P
--
Keith Neilson
Blog: http://keithneilson.co.uk/
Written Work: http://astoryofsorts.blogspot.com/
Email: mandrill @ the above domain
David Chapman
> Also, how exactly does one meet someone impersonally?
Don't be pedantic. He means that he'll issue his official apology to the
man himself instead of delegating it.
--
Who the f--k are you calling insolent?
Rocky Frisco
More like "ludicrously hypocritical."
I used to be precinct chairman for the Democrat Party in my local
precinct. I resigned from the post *and* the party when they told me I
was at the State Convention to "find out what Bill Clinton wants you to
do," rather than to express the wants and needs of my precinct to the Party.
I think "from-the-top-down" democracy is a ridiculous and ugly concept
that deserves nothing but contempt and rejection.
Rocky Frisco
> But how overtly disgusting will it have to be before W loses what little
> support he still has in the US? It saddens me how many people here still
> insist that he's doing a good job. I figure they're either completely taken
> in or else they stand to gain something.
It's those double-damned hunting-gathering-pack endorphins.
Monkeys-with-nuclear-weapons.
> I'd like to get out of the handbasket too.
Entering Hell without the handbasket is not recommended.
Rocky Frisco
> Think how great it would be to be watching the nightside of the earth
> when the power finally fails, all those little lights going out in a
> wave across the face of the planet, as houses of cards come tumbling
> down and humanity reverts to barbarism.
Reverts??? (choke)
Richard Adams
> Paul E. Jamison wrote:
>
>> But how overtly disgusting will it have to be before W loses what little
>> support he still has in the US? It saddens me how many people here still
>> insist that he's doing a good job. I figure they're either completely
>> taken
>> in or else they stand to gain something.
>
>
> It's those double-damned hunting-gathering-pack endorphins.
>
> Monkeys-with-nuclear-weapons.
James Mitchelhill
> From the Collected Witterings of James Mitchelhill, volume 23:
[I have here requoted my original post as it provides context]
>> (from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm>) "I'm going
>> to personally apologise to him," Mr McCartney said. "I'm going to
>> personally meet him if he takes the opportunity."
>>
>> But Mr McCartney said Mr Wolfgang would not be allowed back into the
>> conference, which ends on Thursday.
<snip>
>> Also, how exactly does one meet someone impersonally?
> Don't be pedantic. He means that he'll issue his official apology to
> the man himself instead of delegating it.
You seem to have entirely missed my point and mistaken rhetoric for
pedantry.
You also seem to think I don't understand what Mr McCartney meant, which
is not the case. Note that I didn't take issue with "personally apologise
to him", where the word "personal" serves a function, but with "personally
meet", where the word "personally" is completely redundant. It is possible
to delegate an apology, but not a meeting. ("I will meet" is the same
thing as "I will personally meet".)
By drawing attention to the emptiness of the word "personal" in Mr
McCartney's words, I was attempting (apparently unsuccessfully) to draw
attention to the fact that his response is about words and not actions. Mr
McCartney's quote was juxtaposed with the fact that Mr Wolfgang would not
be allowed back into the conference. It's a style over substance thing.
I'm now going to move slightly away from my original point and expand on
this a little. Feel free to ignore this.
Mr McCartney's apology and meeting are in regards to the *way* in which he
was removed (which everyone agrees was disgraceful), not the removal
itself (which I find disgraceful). The removal happened after Mr Wolfgang
shouted a single word. And the venue where he shouted this was a
*conference* where discussion of an incredibly contentious issue has been
intentionally minimised. The reasons the stewards have given for his
abrupt removal were security concerns (which is a wonderful catch-all
excuse for anything these days), while the reason Mr McCartney has given
for not allowing him to return is that he was disrupting the conference.
Having now seen footage of the event, I don't see how Mr Wolfgang's shout
of the word "nonsense" was disruptive to the functioning of the
conference. There's a big difference between dissent and disruption. What
his shout did disrupt was the use of the conference as a media event and
the function of providing neat little sound bytes.
It deeply disturbs me that the the governing party cannot tolerate
expression of a viewpoint held by at least a sizable minority of its
members; that it has turned an event that should (and once was) about
coming to decisions into an event that is now about enforcing decisions;
and that it has turned security into a fetish and a bludgeon. I think it's
representative of the terribly unhealthy state that UK politics is in.
Gid
Mitchelhill generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> It deeply disturbs me that the the governing party cannot tolerate
> expression of a viewpoint held by at least a sizable minority of its
> members; that it has turned an event that should (and once was) about
> coming to decisions into an event that is now about enforcing decisions;
> and that it has turned security into a fetish and a bludgeon. I think it's
> representative of the terribly unhealthy state that UK politics is in.
Thoughtcrime detected.. report to your local station for removal from
society.. society can not properly function with those that deviate from
the norm within it..
Gid (don't blame me, I voted Tory and I don't watch Coronation Street)..
James Mitchelhill
> James Mitchelhill wrote:
<snip>
>> (from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm>) "I'm going
>> to personally apologise to him," Mr McCartney said. "I'm going to
>> personally meet him if he takes the opportunity."
>>
>> But Mr McCartney said Mr Wolfgang would not be allowed back into the
>> conference, which ends on Thursday.
>> ...
>>
>> That's party chairman, Ian McCartney offering to meet a member of his
>> party (who everyone admits has been badly mistreated) *if* he actively
>> seeks a meeting.
>>
>> Also, how exactly does one meet someone impersonally?
>>
>> Oh, and they're going to apologise but not actually let him back in,
>> which strikes me as slightly insincere.
>
> More like "ludicrously hypocritical."
>
> I used to be precinct chairman for the Democrat Party in my local
> precinct. I resigned from the post *and* the party when they told me I was
> at the State Convention to "find out what Bill Clinton wants you to do,"
> rather than to express the wants and needs of my precinct to the Party.
I was about to make a joke in which I'd have expressed surprise at the
existence of a politician with principles... but that would have involved
calling you a politician and I don't want to cause unnecessary offence ;)
> I think "from-the-top-down" democracy is a ridiculous and ugly concept
> that deserves nothing but contempt and rejection.
[I'm going to go all ex-politics student for a moment... it'll pass]
Top-down democracy is remarkably similar to communism (which sounds like
an insane thing to say in this context, but bear with me...). Both
communism and democracy are "for the good of the people", but they differ
in the idea of who gets to decide what's good for people. In communism,
the state decides and what people want is not necessarily what's good for
them. In democracy, the people make their own decisions, tempered by rules
they've made to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
When exactly did "democracy" and "liberty" get divorced?
Follow these chains of thoughts far enough and you begin to believe some
really *weird* conspiracy theories.
[I'm done]
Lesley Weston
diog...@freeuk.com wrote on 28/09/2005 8:19 AM:
>
> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of
> the Labour Party as is:
<snip>
I take it you're referring to Billy Bragg's song?
> To paraphrase Brecht; given that the Party has clearly forfeited the
> confidence of the government, might it not be simpler for the
> government to dissolve the Party and elect another?
That sounds about right.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
The Stainless Steel Cat
James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:19:19 +0100, Gideon Hallett wrote:
>
>>
>> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful encapsulation of the
>> Labour Party as is:
>>
>> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party conference
>> Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi
>> government build a secure, democratic and stable nation".
>>
>> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour party member for 60
>> years, was bundled out by security guards after he shouted, "That's a
>> lie," during the foreign secretary's keynote conference address.
>
>And the fallout is:
>
>(from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm>)
>"I'm going to personally apologise to him," Mr McCartney said. "I'm
>going to personally meet him if he takes the opportunity."
I've just heard Ian Mccartney on the radio...
"You can't have a debate if the people listening to it are going to disturb
it."
I may not have caught the exact words there, I was too impressed by him
defining Straw's speech first as a debate then by the end of the same
sentence redefining debate as something everyone listens to quietly without
interruptions.
Gideon Hallett
> Paul E. Jamison wrote:
>> "Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
>> news:fRD_e.35159$tB5.30320@okepread06...
>>
>>
>>>The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <Xns96DFD219...@130.133.1.4>,
>>>>Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
<snip>
> Think how great it would be to be watching the nightside of the
> earth when the power finally fails, all those little lights going
> out in a wave across the face of the planet, as houses of cards
> come tumbling down and humanity reverts to barbarism.
I think it would be the single worst thing I could imagine; almost
as bad as that stupid Rapture idea.
If there are people in misery; in deprivation, in pain, then the
last thing I'd want is to have to watch them without being able to
do a damn thing about it.
How much worse to see as well the collapse of all hope, all effort,
all learning?
I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
"The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it
intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought
upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun
when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that
breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any
occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is
passing a piece of himself out of this world?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if
a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death
diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore
never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
Apologies for the sermon.
Gideon.
--
(((( | ====diog...@freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
Gideon Hallett
Or, as you could also say, 'there is no alternative'.
If there is no alternative, then dissent is irrelevant.
> Gid (don't blame me, I voted Tory and I don't watch Coronation
> Street).
The problem being that the Labour Party achieved power by adopting
the means and methods of Thatcherism; and then set about refining
them.
PleegWat
> "Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote in
> news:3q04g8F...@individual.net:
>>Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>>Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only
>>>remain [in Iraq] with their consent."
>>
>>There are a fair few Iraqis who does not give their consent.
>>Presumably, the "their" in his statement refers to the
>>government that is holding the fate of Iraq in its hands.
>
> Since they're all either insurgents, terrorists, or terrorist
> sympathisers, their views do not apparently count.
And I assume someone is a insurgent, terrorist, or terrorist sympathiser
because they think US/UK staying in iraq is a bad idea?
--
PleegWat
Remove caps to reply
Thomas Zahr
...
> I think "from-the-top-down" democracy is a ridiculous and
> ugly concept that deserves nothing but contempt and
> rejection.
You mean apart from being completely impossible? It's coming to the point where a
voters influence is the same as in the old Warsaw Pact where elections are concerned
...
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Hencefort, the afpfavourite of Graycat :o)>
Keith Neilson
> Keith Neilson wrote:
>
>
>>Paul E. Jamison wrote:
>>
>>>"Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fRD_e.35159$tB5.30320@okepread06...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Xns96DFD219...@130.133.1.4>,
>>>>>Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>Think how great it would be to be watching the nightside of the
>>earth when the power finally fails, all those little lights going
>>out in a wave across the face of the planet, as houses of cards
>>come tumbling down and humanity reverts to barbarism.
>
>
> I think it would be the single worst thing I could imagine; almost
> as bad as that stupid Rapture idea.
>
Much more likely to happen than the rapture though. If we carry on as we
are then one day the power will go off and it won't come back.
> If there are people in misery; in deprivation, in pain, then the
> last thing I'd want is to have to watch them without being able to
> do a damn thing about it.
Who says? If there is a colony of sufficient size on the moon there may
indeed be things that could be done to ease the suffering of those left
behind.
>
> How much worse to see as well the collapse of all hope, all effort,
> all learning?
>
Why would we leave our humanity on Earth while we go off galavanting
into the stars? Any sensible effort to colonise anywhere in space would
take our history, knowledge, and collected learning along.
I hate to drag up a cliche but where there's life and all that. Why does
humanity's downfall on Earth mean the downfall of ALL humanity? Earth is
a cradle, a playpen and a proving ground. When we are done with it we
will leave. We will look back upon it with fondness and nostalgia but we
should not grow too attatched to it.
> I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
> I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>
> "The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it
> intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought
> upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun
> when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that
> breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any
> occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is
> passing a piece of himself out of this world?
>
> No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
> continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea,
> Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if
> a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death
> diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore
> never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
>
> Apologies for the sermon.
>
> Gideon.
>
Eh?
Orjan Westin
> "Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote in
> news:3q04g8F...@individual.net:
>
>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>
> What they're saying is that, now they're there, they have a duty
> to support the government they helped to install in the first
> place.
Hm... to be honest, I can see their point - if they left, a civil war
between sunnis, shias and possibly kurds would be very likely. Trouble is,
the situation as it is is very unlikely to improve as long as there are US
troops there.
> Which, of course, is carte blanche for any villainy you can think
> of.
I don't agree, as there is still, despite everything, some concern in all
the allied governments, some concern about what people in the rest of the
western world think of them.
That Lyndie England was given three years, and is likely to be the most
severely punished of those charged, is of course more to do with media and
presentation than justice, but it indicates a desire to be seen to curb some
kinds of villany.
>>> Mr Straw ignored the outburst, to add: "We can and will only
>>> remain [in Iraq] with their consent."
>>
>> There are a fair few Iraqis who does not give their consent.
>> Presumably, the "their" in his statement refers to the
>> government that is holding the fate of Iraq in its hands.
>
> Since they're all either insurgents, terrorists, or terrorist
> sympathisers, their views do not apparently count.
When I wrote "the government that is holding the fate of Iraq in its hands"
I meant the one in Washington, not the one in Baghdad.
Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations
Keith Neilson
Just goes to show what is allowable under "anti-terrorism" legislation.
It should be re-named the "Lock-up-anyone-who-looks-at-mr-Blair-funny"
legislation (Cheri would be the first against the wall I reckon, and she
looks funny at everyone)
Brian Wakeling
The Stainless Steel Cat uttered thus:
> In article <3q04g8F...@individual.net>,
> "Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote:
>
>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>> I came across a snippet of news today; a beautiful
>>> encapsulation of the Labour Party as is:
>>>
>>> "Jack Straw was heckled today as he told the Labour party
>>> conference Britain was in Iraq "for one reason only: to
>>> help the elected Iraqi government build a secure,
>>> democratic and stable nation".
>>
>>> A delegate, who was 82 years old and has been a Labour
>>> party member for 60 years, was bundled out by security
>>> guards after he shouted, "That's a lie," during the
>>> foreign secretary's keynote conference address.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> But... would you mind giving a source for this piece of
>> news?
>
>
> The obviously elderly man was dragged out of his seat by
> his shoulders, while the chap next to him - apparently
> compaining about his treatment - was mobbed by three *very*
> chunky 'stewards' and also dragged off.
>
> It was *utterly* over the top and appalling.
>
> There were also (later?) shots of someone in a suit
> forceably manhandling a cameraman out of the way while
> someone out of shot screamed "Leave me alone!"
>
> I'm deeply ashamed of my government and my country at the
> moment.
>
> Cat.
A leader who sees fit to allow this, or even to allow a
situation where it can happen in the first place, is not a
leader, he is a bully. There are two ways to deal with
bullies - ignore them, or report them. Unfortunately, as the
bullies largely ignore us anyway, it will have little or no
effect if we ignore them. However, there is no-one to whom we
can report this bullying to, so that option's out as well. The
third way of dealing with a bully is to make him respect you -
usually by punching him in the face - so that he doesn't
bother you again. And whilst I suspect many people would like
to punch Tory Bliar in the face, it will not have much effect.
If everyone in the country who no longer feels safe under the
New Labour government, or who no longer trusts it, or who
disagrees with its' major principles/policies, punched TB in
the face, I suspect it would have an effect.
PS. Just so there is no confusion on this matter, any humour
in this post will be found below this line.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
Sign in a shop:
"Credit will only be granted to people over 80
If accompanied by both parents"
Rocky Frisco
>> Monkeys-with-nuclear-weapons.
> http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/2620/bush4qu.jpg
Truth in the news??? What will those clever humans think of next???
Alec Cawley
says...
> A leader who sees fit to allow this, or even to allow a
> situation where it can happen in the first place, is not a
> leader, he is a bully.
A little steep, I think. I don't think a leader can be blamed if
subordinates probably at least four layers below him in the hierarchy
are occasionally incompetent. If they are endemically incompetent, he
could be blamed. But people make mistakes, and the occasional mistake of
an underling cannot be passed all the way to the top. Is the Chairman of
BA or Tesco a bully if some bottom level employee gets a bit to big for
his or her boots - just occasionally?
--
@lec ©awley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Rocky Frisco
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:32:54 -0500, Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
>
>>James Mitchelhill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>(from <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm>) "I'm going
>>>to personally apologise to him," Mr McCartney said. "I'm going to
>>>personally meet him if he takes the opportunity."
>>>
>>>But Mr McCartney said Mr Wolfgang would not be allowed back into the
>>>conference, which ends on Thursday.
>>>...
>>>
>>>That's party chairman, Ian McCartney offering to meet a member of his
>>>party (who everyone admits has been badly mistreated) *if* he actively
>>>seeks a meeting.
>>>
>>>Also, how exactly does one meet someone impersonally?
>>>
>>>Oh, and they're going to apologise but not actually let him back in,
>>>which strikes me as slightly insincere.
>>
>>More like "ludicrously hypocritical."
>>
>>I used to be precinct chairman for the Democrat Party in my local
>>precinct. I resigned from the post *and* the party when they told me I was
>>at the State Convention to "find out what Bill Clinton wants you to do,"
>>rather than to express the wants and needs of my precinct to the Party.
>
>
> I was about to make a joke in which I'd have expressed surprise at the
> existence of a politician with principles... but that would have involved
> calling you a politician and I don't want to cause unnecessary offence ;)
I'm not really a politician, but I play one during the local elections.
I have actually run for Tulsa City Council twice and Mayor once. I never
came close to winning, but I used the automatic press coverage to state
my ideas and concerns. Most of the policies I wanted have been adopted
by the winners.
>>I think "from-the-top-down" democracy is a ridiculous and ugly concept
>>that deserves nothing but contempt and rejection.
> [I'm going to go all ex-politics student for a moment... it'll pass]
>
> Top-down democracy is remarkably similar to communism (which sounds like
> an insane thing to say in this context, but bear with me...). Both
> communism and democracy are "for the good of the people", but they differ
> in the idea of who gets to decide what's good for people. In communism,
> the state decides and what people want is not necessarily what's good for
> them. In democracy, the people make their own decisions, tempered by rules
> they've made to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
>
> When exactly did "democracy" and "liberty" get divorced?
Democracy caught "liberty" actually playing footsie with "the people,"
and declared war. Nothing scares a hypocrite more than the real thing.
> Follow these chains of thoughts far enough and you begin to believe some
> really *weird* conspiracy theories.
Works for me.
> [I'm done]
Too soon. Lots more of value there, no doubt.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
news:MPG.1da659dd7...@news.individual.net:
I think he can be blamed for creating an environment that
encourages such mistakes. If this were an Old Labour
Conference, it wouldn't even *occur* to anyone that people
expressing their opinions were a disruptive influence, but
dissent gets New Labour worried, and that causes incidents
like this one.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
"So if ye're an alien, how come ye've got a Southern accent?"
"Lots of planets have a South, Jamie."
-Conversations that never happened, no. 3
Rocky Frisco
> Rocky Frisco posted:
>>I think "from-the-top-down" democracy is a ridiculous and
>>ugly concept that deserves nothing but contempt and
>>rejection.
> You mean apart from being completely impossible? It's coming to the point where a
> voters influence is the same as in the old Warsaw Pact where elections are concerned
If I'm not mistaken, I think they had the option of voting "no," a
privilege I often envy.
Orjan Westin
> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>> Keith Neilson wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Think how great it would be to be watching the nightside of the
>>> earth when the power finally fails, all those little lights going
>>> out in a wave across the face of the planet, as houses of cards
>>> come tumbling down and humanity reverts to barbarism.
>>
>> I think it would be the single worst thing I could imagine; almost
>> as bad as that stupid Rapture idea.
>
> Much more likely to happen than the rapture though. If we carry on as
> we are then one day the power will go off and it won't come back.
Um... Why will the power go off? Oh, fossile fuels will run out, to be
sure, but nuclear and hydro-power?
>> If there are people in misery; in deprivation, in pain, then the
>> last thing I'd want is to have to watch them without being able to
>> do a damn thing about it.
>
> Who says?
You. "Think how great it would be..."
> If there is a colony of sufficient size on the moon there
> may indeed be things that could be done to ease the suffering of
> those left behind.
May be, perhaps. With colonists sitting down to enjoy the great show of
those on Earth reverting to barbarism, I kind of doubt there'd be a
willingness.
>> How much worse to see as well the collapse of all hope, all effort,
>> all learning?
>>
> Why would we leave our humanity on Earth while we go off galavanting
> into the stars?
No reason, but if I may say so, the fact that it's always "we" going to the
stars, and living in a colony on the moon, reminds me of Jehova's Witnesses,
who say that "we" will be saved.
I'm pretty sure that I won't be sitting there on the moon smirking, and
while I don't know what grounds you have for imagining yourself there, I
kind of doubt that you'll be there, too.
> Any sensible effort to colonise anywhere in space
> would take our history, knowledge, and collected learning along.
Sure, but it wouldn't take Tai Mahal, Colliseum, The Tower of London, or
Grand Canyon. It wouldn't take even a percent of the people. You - if you
go - would not leave your humanity behind, I hope, but you'd definitely
leave humanity behind.
> I hate to drag up a cliche but where there's life and all that. Why
> does humanity's downfall on Earth mean the downfall of ALL humanity?
At the moment, it does. It will be a fair while until there is a viable
colony anywhere alse. And even longer before the colonies would be
self-sufficient in terms of food, oxygen and genes.
But if and when that day comes, then there is hope for humanity's survival
outside Earth. It's not a certainty, but a hope.
> Earth is a cradle, a playpen and a proving ground. When we are done
> with it we will leave.
Wow, all 5-10 billion of us? Or just a select few, an elite leaving the
others behind in the muck?
> We will look back upon it with fondness and
> nostalgia but we should not grow too attatched to it.
Until we have something else, we'd damn well be attached to it, otherwise
"we" will never get anything else.
>> I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
>> I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>
> Eh?
Yes, I can imagine that.
Richard Adams
> Richard Adams wrote:
>
>> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>
>>> Paul E. Jamison wrote:
>>>
>>>> But how overtly disgusting will it have to be before W loses what
>>>> little
>>>> support he still has in the US? It saddens me how many people here
>>>> still
>>>> insist that he's doing a good job. I figure they're either
>>>> completely taken in or else they stand to gain something.
>
>
>>> It's those double-damned hunting-gathering-pack endorphins.
>
>
>>> Monkeys-with-nuclear-weapons.
>
>
>> http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/2620/bush4qu.jpg
>
>
> Truth in the news??? What will those clever humans think of next???
Took long enough to get to, don't you think?
"If it's in the newspapers, It must be true!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose
Lesley Weston
diog...@freeuk.com wrote on 29/09/2005 1:05 AM:
> Keith Neilson wrote:
>> Think how great it would be to be watching the nightside of the
>> earth when the power finally fails, all those little lights going
>> out in a wave across the face of the planet, as houses of cards
>> come tumbling down and humanity reverts to barbarism.
>
> I think it would be the single worst thing I could imagine; almost
> as bad as that stupid Rapture idea.
>
> If there are people in misery; in deprivation, in pain, then the
> last thing I'd want is to have to watch them without being able to
> do a damn thing about it.
>
> How much worse to see as well the collapse of all hope, all effort,
> all learning?
<quote from Donne's Meditation XVII>
>
> Apologies for the sermon.
Don't apologise - it's entirely appropriate.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Keith Neilson wrote:
>> Earth is a cradle, a playpen and a proving ground. When we
>> are done with it we will leave.
>
> Wow, all 5-10 billion of us? Or just a select few, an
> elite leaving the others behind in the muck?
>
>> We will look back upon it with fondness and
>> nostalgia but we should not grow too attatched to it.
>
> Until we have something else, we'd damn well be attached to
> it, otherwise "we" will never get anything else.
Indeed. If you don't take care of a cradle, the child in it
may never have a chance to leave. And if Earth's a proving
ground, let's try to prove something.
Pudde Fjord
> I don't agree, as there is still, despite everything, some concern in all
> the allied governments, some concern about what people in the rest of the
> western world think of them.
>
> That Lyndie England was given three years, and is likely to be the most
> severely punished of those charged, is of course more to do with media and
> presentation than justice, but it indicates a desire to be seen to curb some
> kinds of villany.
>
Now let's see if we can nail some of the bastards at Guantanamo.
The guards, I mean.
Pudde.
Pudde Fjord
> Thomas Zahr wrote:
>
>> Rocky Frisco posted:
>
>
>>> I think "from-the-top-down" democracy is a ridiculous and
>>> ugly concept that deserves nothing but contempt and
>>> rejection.
>
>
>> You mean apart from being completely impossible? It's coming to the
>> point where a
>> voters influence is the same as in the old Warsaw Pact where elections
>> are concerned
>
>
> If I'm not mistaken, I think they had the option of voting "no," a
> privilege I often envy.
>
unforseen consequences...
Pudde.
Keith Neilson
> Keith Neilson wrote:
>
>>Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>
>>>Keith Neilson wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Think how great it would be to be watching the nightside of the
>>>>earth when the power finally fails, all those little lights going
>>>>out in a wave across the face of the planet, as houses of cards
>>>>come tumbling down and humanity reverts to barbarism.
>>>
>>>I think it would be the single worst thing I could imagine; almost
>>>as bad as that stupid Rapture idea.
>>
>>Much more likely to happen than the rapture though. If we carry on as
>>we are then one day the power will go off and it won't come back.
>
>
> Um... Why will the power go off? Oh, fossile fuels will run out, to be
> sure, but nuclear and hydro-power?
>
generat sufficient power for the needs of an entire planet and no-one
seems to want to think about building more nuclear power stations, which
as far as I can see is our only option once the fossil fuels run out.
The complex hydrocarbons which are derived from most of the fossil fuels
are all pervasive. They get everywhere. The nuclear powerstations may
not burn fossil fuels but you can bet they need them for other things,
plastics to name one. There are probably hundreds of little
insignificant things in a nuke station which if they weren't there would
mean that it wouldn't work. I wonder how many of them require the use of
some fossil fuel derived material, either in their manufacture or as
part of their physical make up. I'd be willing to bet that there are a
fair few.
>
>>>If there are people in misery; in deprivation, in pain, then the
>>>last thing I'd want is to have to watch them without being able to
>>>do a damn thing about it.
>>
>>Who says?
>
>
> You. "Think how great it would be..."
>
it from purely aesthetic point of view, like seeing the beauty in an
explosion or an avalanche. The consequences for those in their path are
admittedly pretty dire, but seen from afar they do have a certain
spectacular beauty to them. You missed my point but then I made it badly.
>
>>If there is a colony of sufficient size on the moon there
>>may indeed be things that could be done to ease the suffering of
>>those left behind.
>
>
> May be, perhaps. With colonists sitting down to enjoy the great show of
> those on Earth reverting to barbarism, I kind of doubt there'd be a
> willingness.
>
>
>>>How much worse to see as well the collapse of all hope, all effort,
>>>all learning?
>>>
>>
>>Why would we leave our humanity on Earth while we go off galavanting
>>into the stars?
>
>
> No reason, but if I may say so, the fact that it's always "we" going to the
> stars, and living in a colony on the moon, reminds me of Jehova's Witnesses,
> who say that "we" will be saved.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I won't be sitting there on the moon smirking, and
> while I don't know what grounds you have for imagining yourself there, I
> kind of doubt that you'll be there, too.
>
race, which last time I looked I was a member of. IF I was lucky enough
to be on the moon when the earth melted down I would not be smirking,
just like I wasn't smirking at 9/11, The Tsunami, or Katrina. Sure I
would watch, because these things need to be watched and remembered, and
because I'm only human and some things you just can't help but simply
watch in stunned amazement.
>
>>Any sensible effort to colonise anywhere in space
>>would take our history, knowledge, and collected learning along.
>
>
> Sure, but it wouldn't take Tai Mahal, Colliseum, The Tower of London, or
> Grand Canyon. It wouldn't take even a percent of the people. You - if you
> go - would not leave your humanity behind, I hope, but you'd definitely
> leave humanity behind.
>
Tower of London, Grand Canyon for? Whats the point of doing great
things at all if no-one is going to be around to remember them in a
couple of hundred years time? One lucky hit by an asteroid or comet and
the party will be over. Much more mismanagement of the planets resources
and we're not going to have enough of anything to get off this rock and
we'll end up living in some overpopulated hell rife with disease and
unrest of every imaginable kind, and none of these great cultural
treasures will mean anything anyway.
>
>>I hate to drag up a cliche but where there's life and all that. Why
>>does humanity's downfall on Earth mean the downfall of ALL humanity?
>
>
> At the moment, it does. It will be a fair while until there is a viable
> colony anywhere alse. And even longer before the colonies would be
> self-sufficient in terms of food, oxygen and genes.
>
> But if and when that day comes, then there is hope for humanity's survival
> outside Earth. It's not a certainty, but a hope.
>
>
Yes, at the moment it does, which kind of makes my point for me.
There is hope of mans survival beyond the bounds of this planet, which
is a lot more than there is if we stay (see below)
>>Earth is a cradle, a playpen and a proving ground. When we are done
>>with it we will leave.
>
>
> Wow, all 5-10 billion of us? Or just a select few, an elite leaving the
> others behind in the muck?
>
Thats just cynical. Realistic, but cynical :)
>
>>We will look back upon it with fondness and
>>nostalgia but we should not grow too attatched to it.
>
>
> Until we have something else, we'd damn well be attached to it, otherwise
> "we" will never get anything else.
>
The problem here is that we are fatally attatched to it. I'm not talking
in ifs, *when* something drastic happens to seriously endanger the human
race as a species then we'll *ALL* die (granted not all at once but all
it will take is for the people who know how the machines which make the
food work to die and the rest of us will slowly starve). The Earth will
still be here. We're not destroying the planet, how arrogant of us to
presume that we could. We're only destroying ourselves (and various
other species).
Spreading the species (us) out as much as possible is key to its (our)
survival. It solves so many problems we just need the will to do it. We
have the means already. We've been into space, we just need to think
bigger and start pooling resources and not fighting each other all the
time. It can be done with current technology but no-one has the will to
make it happen. Its not something that those in power can make money
doing or gain anything from themselves so they're not interested.
Our leaders need to learn a lesson from Carrot "Sometimes personal isn't
the same as important"
>
>>>I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
>>>I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>>
>>Eh?
>
>
> Yes, I can imagine that.
>
> Orjan
My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed up in
their own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived too many
years ago to count, and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first
century was going to be like. "No man is an island" I get that. I got
the point but would rather it was explained in modern english, without
all the thees, thous, thys and the odd sentence constructions which are
bloody hard to read.
I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
Keith Neilson
allowed dissenters to be silenced and excluded from the debate.
How long before such "silencing" becomes more drastically permanent?
Ross
<3q2r27F...@individual.net>, seen in alt.fan.pratchett:
[...]
> I don't agree, as there is still, despite everything, some concern in all
> the allied governments, some concern about what people in the rest of the
> western world think of them.
>
> That Lyndie England was given three years, and is likely to be the most
> severely punished of those charged, is of course more to do with media and
> presentation than justice, but it indicates a desire to be seen to curb some
> kinds of villany.
No, it simply indicates a desire to be seen blaming *somebody* (and
preferably somebody *unimportant*) for what happened, and is pretty
common in any large organisation: when something happens, the
resulting shit flies and it is almost _always_ dropped on the lowest
possible level.
I've seen staff in my own organisation disciplined for following
verbal instructions given by their line managers; those verbal
instructions turned out not to be worth the paper they were printed on
and needless to say no manager would actually admit to instructing a
worker bee to do something that was against the rules. And how do you
prove to a tribunal (or court martial) that a line manager, sergeant
or captain, or whatever [1] told you to do something when that person
flat denies it? It comes down to your word against theirs, and a rule
of life is that TPTB prefers to believe the higher ranking or graded
beings rather than those lower in the hierarchy.
On the railway we have unions to at least attempt to help the worker
bees in such cases; I'd be surprised if the US Army permits
unionisation of its grunts.
[1] That's _not_ to say the grunts concerned didn't willingly comply
with the instructions, but when those instructions veer towards
illegality (or over the line), expecting the instructors to admit
anything is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.
[...]
--
Ross
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.
Aquarion
Incidentally, by not voting for labour at the last election,
a large percentage of the population can now be arrested for attempting
to bring down the current govenment. Isn't that nice?
Of course, they've promised never to use this legislation for that, so
that's all right then.
--
Aquarion, www.aquarionics.com (Mail to mailinator.com is publicly displayed)
Hendrik Schober
> > > point where a
> > > voters influence is the same as in the old Warsaw Pact where elections
> > > are concerned
> >
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, I think they had the option of voting "no," a
> > privilege I often envy.
> >
> I think their elections were *not* secret. To vote *no* could have
> unforseen consequences...
Been there, done that. No unforseen consequences.
(That's counting the "loss" of such votes to be
forseen consequences.) Really, it was secret.
Schobi
--
Spam...@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving"
Terry Pratchett
Flybridge
Apparently 1 person was arrested for wearing a T-shirt critical of
Tony Blair and another becuase his dog was wearing a collar which had
a tag critical of Bush and Blair!
Patricia Hewwit put on a suitably shocked face but I don't know if I
believe her.
What are we coming to???
It looks like we are getting closer and closer to a police state.
The world isn't round - it's bent. Spike Milligan
Gideon Hallett
> Gideon wrote:
>> "Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote in
>> news:3q04g8F...@individual.net:
>>
>>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>
>> What they're saying is that, now they're there, they have a duty
>> to support the government they helped to install in the first
>> place.
>
> Hm... to be honest, I can see their point - if they left, a civil
> war between sunnis, shias and possibly kurds would be very likely.
It has always been very likely.
As I said in January 2003, the reason that we supported 'hard men'
like Hussein was that he kept the three sides together under an
iron fist.
Iraq has always been three countries; and although there are those
in each faction who still adhere to the idea of a single Iraq, they
are outnumbered and outgunned.
It's not as if the West has ever been ignorant of this fact; we
supported no fewer than five armed uprisings in Kurdistan between
1970 and 1995 - and when the political winds changed, we sold
Hussein the components for the nerve gas he used on the Kurds in
1988; we also turned a blind eye to Turkey's military incursions
and bombing raids in the mid-90s against Iraqi Kurd villages and
towns inside the 'no-fly' zone.
> Trouble is, the situation as it is is very unlikely to improve as
> long as there are US troops there.
The situation is essentially unstable; as is, the Western-installed
government is simply incapable of holding onto power without
Western troops there.
The Western plan was originally to replace Hussein with another
dictator whilst keeping the military infrastructure relatively
intact.
Obviously, this plan was inoperable following 'de-Baathification';
and there were simply not enough Allied forces to control events in
Iraq - even before such spectacular foulups like Fallujah and Abu
Ghraib.
So the Allied policy is now to try and train a replacement army (and
police force) before domestic political pressure forces the US and
UK to get their troops out.
(Not just an army, either; the CIA has been instrumental in setting
up a new secret police to replace the Mukhabarat; the objective is
presumably to replace Hussein's political and military
infrastructure in all but name.)
The problem with this is that the political diktats concerning this
new army are fundamentally unsound. The West is trying to build an
Iraqi army free from factionalism and primarily loyal to the Iraqi
government.
The Iraqi government is an alliance of convenience; the price of
keeping the Kurds sweet has been effective autonomy for Kurdish
Iraq; and large sections of Shia Iraq have more in common with Iran
than they do with Baghdad.
As long as Western money and Western troops stay in place, the
factions' self-interest runs along playing nicely together; but
they do not trust each other, and they are always engaging in
jockeying for power - both inter- and intra-faction - in Baghdad.
(The Western effort is also seen as a money tree by the factions;
who are 'vanishing' large sums of money; typically for military
supplies that the central government will never see.)
They are trying to train an army without factions; but without the
factions, there is no army to train. When the US wanted 4,000 Iraqi
troops to spearhead the assault on Fallujah last year, they had to
ship up Shias from the south and Kurdish peshmerga from the north.
The resulting carnage added yet more blood to the ongoing three-way
feud.
The violence between factions is becoming daily more severe and more
endemic; and corruption in the Iraqi administration and Western
armed forces means that much of the allocated budget for the
reconstruction of Iraq is simply going missing.
(See http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick09202005.html - $1 billion
belonging to the Iraqi defence ministry was discovered to be
missing last week:
"The money missing from all ministries under the interim Iraqi
government appointed by the US in June 2004 may turn out to be
close to $2bn.
...
The sum missing over an eight-month period in 2004 and 2005 is the
equivalent of the $1.8bn that Saddam allegedly received in kick-
backs under the UN's oil-for-food programme between 1997 and 2003.
The UN was pilloried for not stopping this corruption. The US
military is likely to be criticised over the latest scandal because
it was far better placed than the UN to monitor corruption.")
The current Iraqi government does not have the power to enforce
order in Iraq.
Its members do not have the willingness to endanger themselves for a
single Iraq.
Its soldiers will not fight for a single Iraq.
A civil war is not merely likely; it is already happening; and the
Allies do not have the manpower or the budget to stop it.
(In fact, the influx of Western money and arms is being used to
equip the sides in the civil war.)
>> Which, of course, is carte blanche for any villainy you can think
>> of.
>
> I don't agree, as there is still, despite everything, some concern
> in all the allied governments, some concern about what people in
> the rest of the western world think of them.
I think that this can be more ascribed to 'damage limitation' mode
than any great altruism. Apart from all else, pretty much the
entire world recognises that the Iraq adventure has been one of the
most spectacular cockups of the last 50 years; and the leaders of
the countries involved are reduced to waving the "we can build
something better if we stay!" flag as a justification for the whole
mess.
> That Lyndie England was given three years, and is likely to be the
> most severely punished of those charged, is of course more to do
> with media and presentation than justice, but it indicates a
> desire to be seen to curb some kinds of villany.
Of course, Pte England's major sin was getting caught; and following
the eruption of the Abu Ghraib scandal, the first thing that
Rumsfeld did was to ban digital cameras, camcorders and camera
phones from military installations.
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250873479.html)
There have been no significant changes to the rules of engagement
concerning interrogation; and reports emerging from other places in
Iraq (and outside) would tend to suggest that torture and ritual
humiliation are continuing as before.
(See also
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050916/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_dc_1)
The physical abuse of Iraqi prisoners was *not* isolated to Abu
Ghraib; and it is still continuing.
>>> There are a fair few Iraqis who does not give their consent.
>>> Presumably, the "their" in his statement refers to the
>>> government that is holding the fate of Iraq in its hands.
>>
>> Since they're all either insurgents, terrorists, or terrorist
>> sympathisers, their views do not apparently count.
>
> When I wrote "the government that is holding the fate of Iraq in
> its hands" I meant the one in Washington, not the one in Baghdad.
They don't, though. The situation is beyond the control of the US
government; and as is, the only way that Allied troops are going to
remain in Iraq is in fortified and heavily-defended firebases.
And when the respective Western governments have had enough, they
will pull the troops out (either more or less gracefully); and Iraq
will fracture.
Unlike the Hussein era, the central government does not now have the
military power to control the north and south; in fact, the Shias
and Kurds are now as powerful as they've ever been - and the more
money we put into the area, the more powerful they get.
We don't have the troops or the money to perform the intended
mission; and in throwing good money after bad, we are entirely
likely to make the civil war bloodier than it might have been.
As for us; I stand by what I said nearly three years ago:
How can we yet pretend that this is justice, or that mass slaughter
of Iraqi civilians will produce anything but a tenfold crop of
people ready to engage in suicide missions against the Allied
countries?
gem...@tpg.com.au
wrote:
>I've seen staff in my own organisation disciplined for following
>verbal instructions given by their line managers; those verbal
>instructions turned out not to be worth the paper they were printed on
>and needless to say no manager would actually admit to instructing a
>worker bee to do something that was against the rules.
I've been the bee in circumstances like these. Unfortunately, when the
slime calling himself a manager refused to provide written instructions
confirming his so-called 'directions' (about the closest they could get to
an order), I developed a sudden and terrible case of retroactive deafness.
"Sorry, 'sir', didn't quite catch that bit where you were asking me to
perform morally reprehensible and career-limiting actions. I tell you
what, how about I go and get the local union rep, and you can explain it
to both of us? Or perhaps you'd like me to give you yet another chance, in
the eternally unrealised hope your next attempt will be more entertaining
than boring?"
Some people can get really, really annoyed when you refuse to follow any
direction that isn't written down and signed. So sad.
-SteveD
rachel hayward
speech we've all witnessed this week, can I just add that when I was in
Brighton city centre on Monday, there were signs attached to all the
lamp-posts with a picture of a heavily be-weaponned riot cop warning us that
the area was being patrolled by armed police. Glad I'm not a Brazillian!
Thomas Zahr
> Gideon wrote:
>> "Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com> wrote in
>> news:3q04g8F...@individual.net:
>>
>>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>
>> What they're saying is that, now they're there, they have
>> a duty to support the government they helped to install in
>> the first place.
>
> Hm... to be honest, I can see their point - if they left, a
> civil war between sunnis, shias and possibly kurds would be
> very likely. Trouble is, the situation as it is is very
> unlikely to improve as long as there are US troops there.
...
And quite a few of us could say "Told you [1]so", but refrain
from sheer disgust.
[1] well, obviously not you, but you know who
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<sometimes RL is such a drag>
Richard Adams
>
> The world isn't round - it's bent. Spike Milligan
I thought that was DNA, or something very much like that quote.
Nigel Stapley
"...the whole fabric of the space-time continuum isn't merely
curved...it is, in fact, totally bent!"
(or something very close to this)
(The Book, on the subject of Disaster Area's tax returns)
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Nigel Stapley
<snip>
(Following up to self and others)
As chance would have it, I'm currently re-reading Norman Spinrad's
excellent "The Iron Dream". In bed that evening, having seen the video
footage from Brighton, I was reading about the chapter about the
Swastika Party's huge rally in Oak Park. Scary...
Lesley Weston
Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/09/2005 4:55 PM:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>> Keith Neilson wrote:
>>
>>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
<snip>
>>>> I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
>>>> I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>>>
>>> Eh?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I can imagine that.
>>
>> Orjan
>
> My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed up in
> their own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived too many
> years ago to count,
At what point does the time when someone lived become "too many years ago to
count"?
> and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first
> century was going to be like.
Nor did he need to have. Five hundred or so years is not long enough for the
whole species to have changed drastically enough for Donne's thought not to
apply.
> "No man is an island" I get that. I got
> the point but would rather it was explained in modern english, without
> all the thees, thous, thys and the odd sentence constructions which are
> bloody hard to read.
So you support the modern translations of the Bible over the King James
version; I prefer the beauty of the language in the latter. Since the idea
quoted was written as it was quoted, paraphrasing it into Disneytalk would
not have been appropriate.
>
> I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
> "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
How long ago did whoever said that live?
Keith Neilson
> in article 433c7f0a$0$15065$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net, Keith
> Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/09/2005 4:55 PM:
>
>
>>Orjan Westin wrote:
>>
>>>Keith Neilson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gideon Hallett wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
>>>>>I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>>>>
>>>>Eh?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I can imagine that.
>>>
>>>Orjan
>>
>>My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed up in
>>their own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived too many
>>years ago to count,
>
>
> At what point does the time when someone lived become "too many years ago to
> count"?
>
>
>>and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first
>>century was going to be like.
>
>
> Nor did he need to have. Five hundred or so years is not long enough for the
> whole species to have changed drastically enough for Donne's thought not to
> apply.
>
become ever more isolated from each other and all these marvels of
communication have only served to separate us further.
>
>>"No man is an island" I get that. I got
>>the point but would rather it was explained in modern english, without
>>all the thees, thous, thys and the odd sentence constructions which are
>>bloody hard to read.
>
>
> So you support the modern translations of the Bible over the King James
> version; I prefer the beauty of the language in the latter. Since the idea
> quoted was written as it was quoted, paraphrasing it into Disneytalk would
> not have been appropriate.
Granted the language is beautiful and poetic but its also hard work for
someone who has not studied it at all or even read very much of
it(because its hard work, I enjoy reading and don't really want it to be
a chore)
>
>>I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
>>"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
>
>
> How long ago did whoever said that live?
25 years approximately, which makes him slightly more relevant to me
than Donne
Keith Neilson
get a resolution to the situation or at the very least an apology for
being so blatantly lied to.
flobert
Yeah, but he was on more drugs than any 3 people you find in any
hospital combined. I'm surprised if he even knew what month it was
half the time.
>>
Simon Waldman
> If everyone in the country who no longer feels safe under the
> New Labour government, or who no longer trusts it, or who
> disagrees with its' major principles/policies, punched TB in
> the face, I suspect it would have an effect.
That could take some time... d'you think we could organising a queing
system, with little tickets, and tables with food and comfy chairs while
you wait?
--
"Tact is the ability to describe others as they see
themselves." -- Abraham Lincoln
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, UK email: swal...@firecloud.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross
<qe8qj11eotkffqp21...@4ax.com>, seen in
alt.fan.pratchett:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:21:15 +0100, Ross <junk...@ross-mail.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I've seen staff in my own organisation disciplined for following
> >verbal instructions given by their line managers; those verbal
> >instructions turned out not to be worth the paper they were printed on
> >and needless to say no manager would actually admit to instructing a
> >worker bee to do something that was against the rules.
>
> Some people can get really, really annoyed when you refuse to follow any
> direction that isn't written down and signed. So sad.
Oh, it's so, so sad indeed.
Manglers in offices miles away from you can get really upset when you
say "Yeah, OK, I'll do that. I'll just need you to fax through a
signed, dated authorisation first. With your name and grade clearly
shown, of course..."
<hehehe>
Paul E. Jamison
news:emn213-...@blue.firecloud.org.uk...
> Brian Wakeling wrote:
>
> > If everyone in the country who no longer feels safe under the
> > New Labour government, or who no longer trusts it, or who
> > disagrees with its' major principles/policies, punched TB in
> > the face, I suspect it would have an effect.
>
> That could take some time... d'you think we could organising a queing
> system, with little tickets, and tables with food and comfy chairs while
> you wait?
>
This would never work over here in America with the Shrub. The Secret
Service would need a fairly large army of agents to wrestle all the
potential face-punchers to the ground, unless we used a queue system, too.
For what it's worth, this is one Yankee who finds the Labour Party incident
appalling, and I express my sympathies to my British friends here.
Paul
--
"Who reads, learns, lives the Ferret Way becomes keeper
of light, ennobling outer worlds from one within."
- a prophecy from the Ancients
Mart van de Wege
> Brian Wakeling wrote:
>
>> If everyone in the country who no longer feels safe under the New
>> Labour government, or who no longer trusts it, or who disagrees with
>> its' major principles/policies, punched TB in the face, I suspect it
>> would have an effect.
>
> That could take some time... d'you think we could organising a queing
> system, with little tickets, and tables with food and comfy chairs while
> you wait?
We're talking about the British. *OF COURSE* a queueing system can be
arranged.
Although I wonder about the Scots. Their love of a good scrap might
get the better of their politeness.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Thomas Zahr
> Thomas Zahr wrote:
....
>> And quite a few of us could say "Told you [1]so", but
>> refrain from sheer disgust.
>> [1] well, obviously not you, but you know who
> Not only could we say "I told you so" it is our duty to do
> so until we get a resolution to the situation or at the
> very least an apology for being so blatantly lied to.
Well, as a German, I'll keep out of *that* discusssion.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<http://www.zahr.de>
X Kyle M Thompson
(snip)
>... d'you think we could organising a queing
>system, with little tickets, and tables with food and comfy chairs while
>you wait?
Hijacking this, made me think of the time I queueued at the
Indian embassy for a visa, and there you *did* have to take a
little ticket and wait.
I got to the front and said, "It's just like a deli counter,
isn't it?" to immediate embassesment from myself as I realised
what I had said.
kt.
--
tigger:~ kylet$ uptime
23:23 up 3 days, 5:46, 3 users, load averages: 1.90 2.23 1.89
Lesley Weston
Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 01/10/2005 9:58 AM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> in article 433c7f0a$0$15065$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net, Keith
>> Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/09/2005 4:55 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Orjan Westin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keith Neilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
>>>>>> I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I can imagine that.
>>>>
>>>> Orjan
>>>
>>> My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed up in
>>> their own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived too many
>>> years ago to count,
>>
>>
>> At what point does the time when someone lived become "too many years ago to
>> count"?
>>
> When I don't know when they lived :P
Fair enough.
>>
>>> and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first
>>> century was going to be like.
>>
>>
>> Nor did he need to have. Five hundred or so years is not long enough for the
>> whole species to have changed drastically enough for Donne's thought not to
>> apply.
>>
> The species may not have changed drastically but society has. We have
> become ever more isolated from each other and all these marvels of
> communication have only served to separate us further.
But they haven't - that's the whole point. We are the same now as people who
lived in Donne's lifetime (1572-1631), just as interdependent. Any death
diminishes us all now just as much as it did then.
>>
>>> "No man is an island" I get that. I got
>>> the point but would rather it was explained in modern english, without
>>> all the thees, thous, thys and the odd sentence constructions which are
>>> bloody hard to read.
>>
>>
>> So you support the modern translations of the Bible over the King James
>> version; I prefer the beauty of the language in the latter. Since the idea
>> quoted was written as it was quoted, paraphrasing it into Disneytalk would
>> not have been appropriate.
> I'm not fussed about the translations of the bible as I don't read it.
> Granted the language is beautiful and poetic but its also hard work for
> someone who has not studied it at all or even read very much of
> it(because its hard work, I enjoy reading and don't really want it to be
> a chore)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But had you really not heard
of Donne, and this piece of his in particular, before Gideon quoted him?
>>
>>> I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
>>> "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
>>
>>
>> How long ago did whoever said that live?
>
> 25 years approximately, which makes him slightly more relevant to me
> than Donne
>>
Is that 25 years since he was born, or since he died, or somewhere in
between? When does history start (going backwards) and present-day finish?
What I'm trying to convey is that if a thing is true, then it stays true,
however much time passes.
Rocky Frisco
> "Simon Waldman" <swal...@firecloud.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:emn213-...@blue.firecloud.org.uk...
>>Brian Wakeling wrote:
>>>If everyone in the country who no longer feels safe under the
>>>New Labour government, or who no longer trusts it, or who
>>>disagrees with its' major principles/policies, punched TB in
>>>the face, I suspect it would have an effect.
>>
>>That could take some time... d'you think we could organising a queing
>>system, with little tickets, and tables with food and comfy chairs while
>>you wait?
> This would never work over here in America with the Shrub. The Secret
> Service would need a fairly large army of agents to wrestle all the
> potential face-punchers to the ground, unless we used a queue system, too.
>
> For what it's worth, this is one Yankee who finds the Labour Party incident
> appalling, and I express my sympathies to my British friends here.
Was a SF story, long time past, that had a terrible dictator ego-monster
with really tight security. He wanted a national celebration to show
what a wonderfully important person he was. The organizer hated him, so
he provided beautiful souvenir shiny aluminiumized programs for each of
the thousands of participants in the stadium. A bit of word-of-mouth at
the very last minute provided the instructions for the use of the programs.
At the pivotal moment, everybody in the audience reflected the hot
afternoon sun off their program onto the dictator on the reviewing stand.
"Sizzle!"
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
The World's Best Daily News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/
Rock onstage with JJ Cale and E. Clapton: http://tinyurl.com/3modw
Rocky Frisco
Erm, "How much is a Brazillian?"
Daibhid Ceanaideach
news:TnF%e.38147$tB5.32652@okepread06:
> Was a SF story, long time past, that had a terrible
> dictator ego-monster with really tight security. He wanted
> a national celebration to show what a wonderfully important
> person he was. The organizer hated him, so he provided
> beautiful souvenir shiny aluminiumized programs for each of
> the thousands of participants in the stadium. A bit of
> word-of-mouth at the very last minute provided the
> instructions for the use of the programs.
>
> At the pivotal moment, everybody in the audience reflected
> the hot afternoon sun off their program onto the dictator
> on the reviewing stand.
>
> "Sizzle!"
I've a feeling I've read that story (was it ACC?), and it was
actually two countries, which had subumed their war into
football. Then at the big match the fans of one side used the
programs as described to zap the leader of the *other* country
as he stood in the opposing stand.
Or maybe two writers came up with the same idea.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
"So if ye're an alien, how come ye've got a Southern accent?"
"Lots of planets have a South, Jamie."
-Conversations that never happened, no. 3
Rocky Frisco
> Just to add to this, did anyone see Question Time last night?
>
> Apparently 1 person was arrested for wearing a T-shirt critical of
> Tony Blair and another becuase his dog was wearing a collar which had
> a tag critical of Bush and Blair!
>
> Patricia Hewwit put on a suitably shocked face but I don't know if I
> believe her.
>
> What are we coming to???
>
> It looks like we are getting closer and closer to a police state.
Personal apologies for bringing this up (and please let's not trash afp
with a flame-war) but I simply can't let that go by without making this
comment: "One valid definition of a Police State is a place where the
police have all of the deadly weapons."
So, in the light of that, please let me respectfully say: "Not closer,
just ever more obvious."
> The world isn't round - it's bent. Spike Milligan
Amen.
Alec Cawley
daibhidc...@aol.com says...
> Rocky Frisco <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in
> news:TnF%e.38147$tB5.32652@okepread06:
>
> > Was a SF story, long time past, that had a terrible
> > dictator ego-monster with really tight security. He wanted
> > a national celebration to show what a wonderfully important
> > person he was. The organizer hated him, so he provided
> > beautiful souvenir shiny aluminiumized programs for each of
> > the thousands of participants in the stadium. A bit of
> > word-of-mouth at the very last minute provided the
> > instructions for the use of the programs.
> >
> > At the pivotal moment, everybody in the audience reflected
> > the hot afternoon sun off their program onto the dictator
> > on the reviewing stand.
> >
> > "Sizzle!"
>
> I've a feeling I've read that story (was it ACC?), and it was
> actually two countries, which had subumed their war into
> football. Then at the big match the fans of one side used the
> programs as described to zap the leader of the *other* country
> as he stood in the opposing stand.
This was certainly the plot of an ACC short story, and it was the
(presumed dishonest) referee and proxy for one of the countries who was
zapped.
>
> Or maybe two writers came up with the same idea.
Possible. But I think it is one of those one-offs which cannot be
copied.
--
@lec Šawley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Arthur Hagen
> rachel hayward wrote:
>
>> Further to the scary retrograde steps against democracy,m liberty
>> and free speech we've all witnessed this week, can I just add that
>> when I was in Brighton city centre on Monday, there were signs
>> attached to all the lamp-posts with a picture of a heavily
>> be-weaponned riot cop warning us that the area was being patrolled
>> by armed police. Glad I'm not a Brazillian!
>
> Erm, "How much is a Brazillian?"
It's approximately 1984 Gillams.
HTH, HAND,
--
*Art
John S. Wilkins
> Rocky Frisco <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in
> news:TnF%e.38147$tB5.32652@okepread06:
>
>
>>Was a SF story, long time past, that had a terrible
>>dictator ego-monster with really tight security. He wanted
>>a national celebration to show what a wonderfully important
>>person he was. The organizer hated him, so he provided
>>beautiful souvenir shiny aluminiumized programs for each of
>>the thousands of participants in the stadium. A bit of
>>word-of-mouth at the very last minute provided the
>>instructions for the use of the programs.
>>
>>At the pivotal moment, everybody in the audience reflected
>>the hot afternoon sun off their program onto the dictator
>>on the reviewing stand.
>>
>>"Sizzle!"
>
>
> I've a feeling I've read that story (was it ACC?), and it was
> actually two countries, which had subumed their war into
> football. Then at the big match the fans of one side used the
> programs as described to zap the leader of the *other* country
> as he stood in the opposing stand.
>
> Or maybe two writers came up with the same idea.
>
dictator who looked into a telescope. I think there's a mixup
--
John S. Wilkins : evolvethought.blogspot.com : Biohumanities, Uni Queensland
We shall have to evolve/problem-solvers galore -
since each problem they solve/creates ten problems more.
- Piet Hein, "The only solution"
The Stainless Steel Cat
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>Simon Waldman <swal...@firecloud.org.uk> writes:
>
>> Brian Wakeling wrote:
>>
>>> If everyone in the country who no longer feels safe under the New
>>> Labour government, or who no longer trusts it, or who disagrees with
>>> its' major principles/policies, punched TB in the face, I suspect it
>>> would have an effect.
>>
>> That could take some time... d'you think we could organising a queing
>> system, with little tickets, and tables with food and comfy chairs while
>> you wait?
>
>We're talking about the British. *OF COURSE* a queueing system can be
>arranged.
>
>Although I wonder about the Scots. Their love of a good scrap might
>get the better of their politeness.
No, we'd just spend to time waiting in the queue fighting with our ancient
enemy... each other.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
Some people juggle geese!
Diane L
> in article 433ec060$0$73622$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net, Keith
> Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 01/10/2005 9:58 AM:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> in article 433c7f0a$0$15065$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net,
>>> Keith Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/09/2005 4:55 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Orjan Westin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Keith Neilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII
>>>>>>> here; as I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I can imagine that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Orjan
>>>>
>>>> My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed
>>>> up in their own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived
>>>> too many years ago to count,
>>>
>>>
>>> At what point does the time when someone lived become "too many
>>> years ago to count"?
>>>
>> When I don't know when they lived :P
>
> Fair enough.
Not really. 374 years *isn't* too many years to count. If it's too many
for Keith to be bothered counting, that's another thing entirely.
>>>
>>>> and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first
>>>> century was going to be like.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor did he need to have. Five hundred or so years is not long
>>> enough for the whole species to have changed drastically enough for
>>> Donne's thought not to apply.
>>>
>> The species may not have changed drastically but society has. We have
>> become ever more isolated from each other and all these marvels of
>> communication have only served to separate us further.
I don't think that's true at all. We as a species have become much *less*
isolated due to these marvels of communication. If I turn on my TV and
see an African child starving or an Indonesian woman weeping for her
family or an Arab or Israeli bleeding I can understand and sympathise
with their pain far more than people in the 15th century could. Having
seen the pictures of the planet from outside the atmosphere, it's much
harder for us to miss the fact that we're all part of a greater whole.
>
> But they haven't - that's the whole point. We are the same now as
> people who lived in Donne's lifetime (1572-1631), just as
> interdependent. Any death diminishes us all now just as much as it
> did then.
Exactly.
>>>
>>>> "No man is an island" I get that. I got
>>>> the point but would rather it was explained in modern english,
>>>> without all the thees, thous, thys and the odd sentence
>>>> constructions which are bloody hard to read.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you support the modern translations of the Bible over the King
>>> James version; I prefer the beauty of the language in the latter.
>>> Since the idea quoted was written as it was quoted, paraphrasing it
>>> into Disneytalk would not have been appropriate.
>> I'm not fussed about the translations of the bible as I don't read
>> it. Granted the language is beautiful and poetic but its also hard
>> work for someone who has not studied it at all or even read very
>> much of it(because its hard work, I enjoy reading and don't really
>> want it to be a chore)
>
> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But had you really not
> heard of Donne, and this piece of his in particular, before Gideon
> quoted him?
>>>
>>>> I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
>>>> "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
>>>
>>>
>>> How long ago did whoever said that live?
It was John Lennon, btw, in the song 'Imagine'. Born 1940, died 1980.
>> 25 years approximately, which makes him slightly more relevant to me
>> than Donne
No, it makes him slightly more recent than Donne.
> Is that 25 years since he was born, or since he died, or somewhere in
> between? When does history start (going backwards) and present-day
> finish? What I'm trying to convey is that if a thing is true, then it
> stays true, however much time passes.
I agree.
Diane L.
Gideon
news:Xns96E3AF5A...@130.133.1.4:
> Rocky Frisco <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in
> news:TnF%e.38147$tB5.32652@okepread06:
>
>> At the pivotal moment, everybody in the audience reflected
>> the hot afternoon sun off their program onto the dictator
>> on the reviewing stand.
>>
>> "Sizzle!"
>
> I've a feeling I've read that story (was it ACC?), and it was
> actually two countries, which had subumed their war into
> football. Then at the big match the fans of one side used the
> programs as described to zap the leader of the *other* country
> as he stood in the opposing stand.
It was Clarke, and I think it was either Tales from the White Hart
or something of a similar age.
(Although I thought it was the referee they incinerated, after he
gave a particularly dubious decision.)
cheers.
Gideon.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> I'm pretty sure that I won't be sitting there on the moon smirking, and while
> I don't know what grounds you have for imagining yourself there, I kind of
> doubt that you'll be there, too.
This paragraph strikes me as probably being based on a false premise,
as I don't imagine space colonists as being people in a position to
smirk, at least not on materialistic grounds. Surely space colonists
are people who give up the comforts they're used to on Earth in
exchange for a somewhat more meagre and adventurous life in space, so
that their /descendents/ can smirk.
Adrian.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>> Keith Neilson wrote:
>>>Gideon Hallett wrote:
>>>>I'm going to have to quote part of Donne's Meditation XVII here; as
>>>>I feel it sums up my feelings pretty well;
>>>
>>>Eh?
>>
>> Yes, I can imagine that.
>
> My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed up in their
> own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived too many years ago to
> count, and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first century was going
> to be like. "No man is an island" I get that. I got the point but would rather
> it was explained in modern english, without all the thees, thous, thys and the
> odd sentence constructions which are bloody hard to read.
You find it hard to read, you think the fact that the author knew
nothing of the twenty-first century somehow diminishes its value, and
you don't understand the purpose of quoting it rather than
paraphrasing its sentiments?
I'm speechless.
Adrian.
"I feel we are all islands - in a common sea."
-- Anne Morrow Lindbergh
Richard Bos
> Orjan Westin wrote:
> > Keith Neilson wrote:
> >
> >>Much more likely to happen than the rapture though. If we carry on as
> >>we are then one day the power will go off and it won't come back.
> >
> > Um... Why will the power go off? Oh, fossile fuels will run out, to be
> > sure, but nuclear and hydro-power?
> >
> Note I said if we carry on as we are. Hydro, solar, and wind will never
> generat sufficient power for the needs of an entire planet and no-one
> seems to want to think about building more nuclear power stations, which
> as far as I can see is our only option once the fossil fuels run out.
Nuclear power will also go off one day. There may be a lot of energy in
uranium, but it's still a finite amount. Ditto, for an even longer
period, for fusion. And even if we could get all our energy from solar
power, the sun will collapse one day, you know.
> The complex hydrocarbons which are derived from most of the fossil fuels
> are all pervasive. They get everywhere. The nuclear powerstations may
> not burn fossil fuels but you can bet they need them for other things,
> plastics to name one.
This is going to be a much bigger problem than energy, I suspect.
> >>Any sensible effort to colonise anywhere in space
> >>would take our history, knowledge, and collected learning along.
> My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed up in
> their own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived too many
> years ago to count, and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first
> century was going to be like. "No man is an island" I get that. I got
> the point but would rather it was explained in modern english, without
> all the thees, thous, thys and the odd sentence constructions which are
> bloody hard to read.
How can one man possibly have written both of the above!?
ichard
Arthur Hagen
>
> Nuclear power will also go off one day. There may be a lot of energy
> in uranium, but it's still a finite amount. Ditto, for an even longer
> period, for fusion.
No, for all practical purposes, there's an unlimited supply of hydrogen.
Unless you mean that we have to some day in the far future infuse the
sun with more hydrogen, to postpone its becoming a red giant? (Funny,
but I haven't read a sci-fi story yet where anyone has tried that. Have
I stumbled on The Unwritten Sci-Fi Story?)
> And even if we could get all our energy from solar
> power, the sun will collapse one day, you know.
Not until it's burnt the Earth to a crisp. At which time I find it
unlikely that there's humans here anyhow.
Regards,
--
*Art
Orjan Westin
Quite. Although this was how I read Keith's post, that the people on the
moon would sit smirking as the lights of Earth went out and the people down
here would become savage barbarians overnight.
So yes, that premise was false, IMO, and Keith has subsequently explained
that he did not want to say what he seemed to be saying.
Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations
Lesley Weston
di...@lindquist.plus.com wrote on 02/10/2005 2:51 AM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> in article 433ec060$0$73622$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net, Keith
>> Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 01/10/2005 9:58 AM:
>>
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> in article 433c7f0a$0$15065$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net,
>>>> Keith Neilson at webma...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/09/2005 4:55 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Orjan Westin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Keith Neilson wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
>>>>> "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How long ago did whoever said that live?
>
> It was John Lennon, btw, in the song 'Imagine'. Born 1940, died 1980.
I thought it was, but wasn't sure - I'm not very good at song lyrics. An
interesting man with some important things to say, but hardly comparable to
Donne. Still, it's a shame that he was killed - his death certainly
diminishes us all.
Aquarion
Yeah, I have a version of that, or did when I was freelancing. It's called
"The Amend" and requires signoff from the person who signs off...
--
Aquarion, www.aquarionics.com (Mail to mailinator.com is publicly displayed)
Arthur Hagen
> in article 433fada3$0$73625$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net,
> Diane L at di...@lindquist.plus.com wrote on 02/10/2005 2:51 AM:
>
>> It was John Lennon, btw, in the song 'Imagine'. Born 1940, died 1980.
>
> I thought it was, but wasn't sure - I'm not very good at song lyrics.
> An interesting man with some important things to say, but hardly
> comparable to Donne. Still, it's a shame that he was killed - his
> death certainly diminishes us all.
Yes, and his death ruined my coming-of-age birthday. I had /plans/,
which were, quite inconsiderately, destroyed by the news.
Regards,
--
*Art
Keith Neilson
I had heard the quote "No man is an island..." but not in context, and I
had no idea where it came from. As far as Donne goes is he not one of
the Osmonds? :P (no I'd never heard of him)
>>>>I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
>>>>"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
>>>
>>>
>>>How long ago did whoever said that live?
>>
>>25 years approximately, which makes him slightly more relevant to me
>>than Donne
>>
> Is that 25 years since he was born, or since he died, or somewhere in
> between? When does history start (going backwards) and present-day finish?
If we're being pedantic he died approximately 25 years ago but I *did*
answer the question in that he was alive 25 years ago (give or take).
History starts when the winners say it does. Semantically speaking the
present day is today and history is yesterday.
> What I'm trying to convey is that if a thing is true, then it stays true,
> however much time passes.
>
Ok, It was once true to say that british rail was government owned, it
is not true now. So if a thing is true then it doesn't necessarily stay
true. If that were so I could say I was 21 forever, I was once so by
your logic I must always be. The only truth that is constant is "things
change".
--
Keith Neilson
Blog: http://keithneilson.co.uk/
Written Work: http://astoryofsorts.blogspot.com/
Email: mandrill @ the above domain
Keith Neilson
Quite. If I thought that Donne had anything relevant to say then I would
have made more of an effort. As it is I'm now sufficiently intrigued to
go hunting for him.
>
>>>>>and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first
>>>>>century was going to be like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nor did he need to have. Five hundred or so years is not long
>>>>enough for the whole species to have changed drastically enough for
>>>>Donne's thought not to apply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The species may not have changed drastically but society has. We have
>>>become ever more isolated from each other and all these marvels of
>>>communication have only served to separate us further.
>
>
> I don't think that's true at all. We as a species have become much *less*
> isolated due to these marvels of communication. If I turn on my TV and
> see an African child starving or an Indonesian woman weeping for her
> family or an Arab or Israeli bleeding I can understand and sympathise
> with their pain far more than people in the 15th century could. Having
> seen the pictures of the planet from outside the atmosphere, it's much
> harder for us to miss the fact that we're all part of a greater whole.
>
Have we not become used to seeing bad news on the telly though. It's not
happening to us, its happening far away and in a way its not "real".
We're inundated with images of suffering, news of atrocities. "Wars and
rumours of wars" no wonder the rapture freaks are having a party. We're
made to feel that humanity is made up of minorities, of little groups of
people who are all different. Everything we have thrown at us by the
media is all about Us and Them; "Terrorists (them) bomb London (us)",
"Asians (Them) riot in Bradford, Four Police (Us) Killed". This
marvellous communications device has the *potential* to bring us closer
together but it is not being used for that purpose. Instead of making us
feel like the worlds suffering is our own we are made to be thankful
that it isn't happeing to us (when in fact it is). As I think I said I
get the whole "no man is an island..." bit, but there is a difference
between it being so and us wanting it to be so.
>
>>But they haven't - that's the whole point. We are the same now as
>>people who lived in Donne's lifetime (1572-1631), just as
>>interdependent. Any death diminishes us all now just as much as it
>>did then.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
I'm not the same as someone who lived 374 years ago. For one thing I'm
not likely to have survived childbirth (long story), for another I'm not
likely to have been quite as well educated. I wouldn't be able to talk
to someone in Canada without leaving my living room. I would have no
where near as much free time as I do now and my place in the societal
hierarchy would not be anywhere near as fluid or flexible as it is
today. Physically, and possibly emotionally, humanity has not changed
significantly in 374yrs, societally there is little we share with the
society of 374 years ago.
>
>>>>>"No man is an island" I get that. I got
>>>>>the point but would rather it was explained in modern english,
>>>>>without all the thees, thous, thys and the odd sentence
>>>>>constructions which are bloody hard to read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you support the modern translations of the Bible over the King
>>>>James version; I prefer the beauty of the language in the latter.
>>>>Since the idea quoted was written as it was quoted, paraphrasing it
>>>>into Disneytalk would not have been appropriate.
>>>
>>>I'm not fussed about the translations of the bible as I don't read
>>>it. Granted the language is beautiful and poetic but its also hard
>>>work for someone who has not studied it at all or even read very
>>>much of it(because its hard work, I enjoy reading and don't really
>>>want it to be a chore)
>>
>>You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But had you really not
>>heard of Donne, and this piece of his in particular, before Gideon
>>quoted him?
>>
>>>>>I'd like to sum up my feelings with someone elses words now;
>>>>>"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How long ago did whoever said that live?
>
>
> It was John Lennon, btw, in the song 'Imagine'. Born 1940, died 1980.
>
>
>>>25 years approximately, which makes him slightly more relevant to me
>>>than Donne
>
>
> No, it makes him slightly more recent than Donne.
>
And as I have pointed out above John Lennon lived in a society much more
like mine that Donne so he is therefore more relevant.
>
>>Is that 25 years since he was born, or since he died, or somewhere in
>>between? When does history start (going backwards) and present-day
>>finish? What I'm trying to convey is that if a thing is true, then it
>>stays true, however much time passes.
>
>
> I agree.
>
And by that logic I will always be 21 years old (it was true once...)
> Diane L.
Keith Neilson
relevant and thought it was hard to understand (I had to re-read it a
few times before understanding the first part of it). Two different things.
The given purpose of the quote was to sum up Gideon's feelings.
Therefore he was using the quote to paraphrase *his* feelings about the
situation, all I asked was why couldn't he haveused his own words?
Furthermore I got the impression that the purpose of quoting it was to
show off. (Sorry if that wasn't the intention, thats just the impression
I got) Mainly because thats what I do myself.
I think your quote is much closer to the mark anyway.
Keith Neilson
Or fighting with each other over who gets to punch Mr Blair first, or
whether headbutting is allowed instead of a punch, or even over who gets
the comfy seat while we wait, we don't really need an excuse,
anything'll do.
Keith Neilson
Should that be Gilliam?
Keith Neilson
> Keith Neilson posted:
>
>
>>Thomas Zahr wrote:
>
> ....
>
>
>>>And quite a few of us could say "Told you [1]so", but
>>>refrain from sheer disgust.
>
>
>>>[1] well, obviously not you, but you know who
>
>
>>Not only could we say "I told you so" it is our duty to do
>>so until we get a resolution to the situation or at the
>>very least an apology for being so blatantly lied to.
>
>
> Well, as a German, I'll keep out of *that* discusssion.
>
Why? The more the merrier I reckon.
John S. Wilkins
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>
>> Rocky Frisco <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> rachel hayward wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Further to the scary retrograde steps against democracy,m liberty
>>>> and free speech we've all witnessed this week, can I just add that
>>>> when I was in Brighton city centre on Monday, there were signs
>>>> attached to all the lamp-posts with a picture of a heavily
>>>> be-weaponned riot cop warning us that the area was being patrolled
>>>> by armed police. Glad I'm not a Brazillian!
>>>
>>>
>>> Erm, "How much is a Brazillian?"
>>
>>
>>
>> It's approximately 1984 Gillams.
>>
>> HTH, HAND,
>
>
> Should that be Gilliam?
>
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> Keith Neilson wrote
>>>My point here was why couldn't the feelings in question be summed up in their
>>>own words? Instead of those of some dead guy who lived too many years ago to
>>>count, and who had *NO IDEA* what life in the twenty-first century was going
>>>to be like. "No man is an island" I get that. I got the point but would
>>>rather it was explained in modern english, without all the thees, thous, thys
>>>and the odd sentence constructions which are bloody hard to read.
>>
>> You find it hard to read, you think the fact that the author knew
>> nothing of the twenty-first century somehow diminishes its value, and
>> you don't understand the purpose of quoting it rather than
>> paraphrasing its sentiments?
>>
>> I'm speechless.
>>
>> Adrian.
>>
>> "I feel we are all islands - in a common sea."
>> -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh
>
> I didn't say it diminished its value, I said that I didn't find it relevant
> and thought it was hard to understand (I had to re-read it a few times before
> understanding the first part of it). Two different things.
> The given purpose of the quote was to sum up Gideon's feelings. Therefore he
> was using the quote to paraphrase *his* feelings about the situation, all I
> asked was why couldn't he haveused his own words?
There are various reasons why people quote literature in order to
express their own feelings. I'm sure Gideon can do better than I can
at explaining *his* reasons, but one of them is that it reinforces a
connection between one's own thoughts and that of culture's most
eloquent. I think that has intrinsic value.
> Furthermore I got the impression that the purpose of quoting it was to show
> off. (Sorry if that wasn't the intention, thats just the impression I got)
> Mainly because thats what I do myself.
Your honesty does you credit there, as does the apology.
It might well be said, "When all you have are competitions, everything
looks like a boast." A lot of people would do well to remember that...
> I think your quote is much closer to the mark anyway.
It's complementary. We are all connected, but we are all seperate.
Both sides of the coin are part of the whole picture.
Adrian.
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Rocky Frisco <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> rachel hayward wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Further to the scary retrograde steps against democracy,m liberty
>>>> and free speech we've all witnessed this week, can I just add that
>>>> when I was in Brighton city centre on Monday, there were signs
>>>> attached to all the lamp-posts with a picture of a heavily
>>>> be-weaponned riot cop warning us that the area was being patrolled
>>>> by armed police. Glad I'm not a Brazillian!
>>>
>>> Erm, "How much is a Brazillian?"
>>
>>
>> It's approximately 1984 Gillams.
>>
>> HTH, HAND,
>
> Should that be Gilliam?
It should have been Gilliams. Dratted keyboard low on btteries again.
Regards,
--
*Art
Flybridge
wrote:
>Flybridge wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The world isn't round - it's bent. Spike Milligan
>
>I thought that was DNA, or something very much like that quote.
It's a quote from a letter Spike sent to someone I can't remember.
Shortly after Spike's death his publisher release a 'best of' book
(may have been imaginatively entitled 'The Best of Spike Milligan' -
can't remember that either). Towards the end there is one of Spike's
letters, and this is the last comment he made in that letter.
So now you know.
--------------------------------------------------
Kegs
Not a fan, then?
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
A modest man is usually admired; if people ever hear of him.
Brian Wakeling
Flybridge uttered thus:
If you mean "The Essential Spike Milligan", that was one of
the few books I brought with me when I moved. The sentence
comes from the end of the second letter to Robert Graves that
is reproduced in the book (pp309-11 pb).
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"Save the whales. Collect the whole set."
Alec Cawley
webma...@yahoo.com says...
> I'm not the same as someone who lived 374 years ago. For one thing I'm
> not likely to have survived childbirth (long story), for another I'm not
> likely to have been quite as well educated. I wouldn't be able to talk
> to someone in Canada without leaving my living room. I would have no
> where near as much free time as I do now and my place in the societal
> hierarchy would not be anywhere near as fluid or flexible as it is
> today. Physically, and possibly emotionally, humanity has not changed
> significantly in 374yrs, societally there is little we share with the
> society of 374 years ago.
I think you are overestimating the amount of our lives that is gadgets
and the amount that is people. You are still a warm-blooded highly
social animal in which both parents usually but not always care for
children. Those children have a very long vulnerable period, so that
choosing a good mate is important to both sexes. Family groups are
therefore tighter than most animals, and much longer lasting. You have
to work with other people to achieve anything, and you have to interact
with many more other people to fulfill your everyday needs. You have
five senses, of which the dominant is vision. You are born ignorant and
acquire enormous amounts of knowledge during your extended growing-up
period.
All these are far, far more important than techno-gizmos. Donnes "No man
is an island" is only irrelevant to you of you were not brought up in a
family, have no intention of having a family or even a partner, and do
not interact with other humans in any more complicated way than buying a
ticket at a kiosk.
Just as a fish is (said to be) not aware of the sea, you are not aware
of ocean of society in which you swim. Writers like Donne point out this
unperceived but all encompassing bath of humanity in which we float.
--
@lec Šawley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler