Xeno #82
Lee Gold
The deadline for #83, the Bastard Grandchildren of Argo issue, is April
7th.
Slan by Randall Garrett
Intemperate Revenge by Ken Hughes
New Mexico History 2001 by Patricia Mathews
Star Trek TNG by H. Paul Shuch
Gossip Together by Joshua Kronengold
Advice from Your Filkers by Patricia Mathews
Charlie by Raoul I. Benefiche
Love Song from a Chimera by Michael Hopcroft
The Filkers by Andrew Ross
Little Fuzzy Ancestors by Mark A. Mandel
Metamorphosis by Bob Kanefsky
Debugging All Your Code by James B. Rousey
Cats with Thumbs by Harold Feld
The Vampire Blues by Cindy Turner & Jordan Mann
A Very Large Dog by Leslie Fish
So Long, Doug by Blake Hodgetts
After Cambreadth by John C. Bunnell
Air Jordan by Andrew Ross
The full Xeno indexes can be found at http://theStarport.com/xeno/
There's also a link to the index for FILKER UP 1-5.
Xenofilkia is $1 per issue plus postage.
Add five cents if you want it mailed as a flat in a 9x12 envelope
instead of folded up in a #10 business envelope.
Current Postage: An issue weighs 3 ounces and postage runs 80 cents
(inside the US), or $1.10 to Canada, $2.40 to Europe, $2.60 to
Australia, New Zealand, & Japan, and $2.30 to Singapore and Hong Kong
[economy letter mail]. Postage may be going up (in June? in September?)
to 83 cents in the US. I don't know if international rates will also be
going up.
Feel free to send a lump sum (check, money order or straight cash.
I can handle cash or checks in foreign currencies or you can send in
payment via PayPal <https://secure.paypal.com/> to Lee Gold. This is a
business account so PayPal will deduct 2.9% plus 30 cents.
Each issue, you'll find your remaining balance noted on the envelope
under
my return address. Your balance is refundable any time on your request.
Make a check/money order out to "Lee Gold," NOT to Xenofilkia.
Contributors get that issue free and the next issue postage only.
(This is intended to create an addiction to contributing.) But
I reserve the right to pick and choose what songs I want on the
basis of merit and whim. And to request that certain songs be
rewritten to a somewhat higher standard of scansion and rhyme
before they see print. And to fix up punctuation and spelling.
All 82 issues of Xeno are still in print. It is my intention
to keep ALL issues of Xenofilkia in print permanently.
Let me know if you want to buy several issues of Xeno,
and I'll quote you the appropriate postage.
Xenos appearing in 2001 and later years each have a filksong by
Randall Garrett (except for #80). This will continue
until all of his filksongs are back in print again.
Also available:
FILKER UP #1-5, each with 44 pages of filksongs: what I consider
my best songs and those by some friends that meet the same standard.
$3 each -- plus postage. These songbooks weigh 5 ounces each, and
are cheapest mailed Media Mail: $1.33 postage (1 pound) for three of
them,
$1.78 for all five -- US. (Yes, Media Mail is a lot cheaper than First
Class. All 80 Xenos (14 pounds) by Media Mail in the US is less than
$6 postage.)
Or you can get all five FILKER UPs for $12 plus postage for 2 pounds
($1.78 US Book Rate).
FILKER UP #5 is rated as for MATURE audiences of all ages.
The other FILKER UPs don't contain particularly adult material.
TOM DIGBY ALONG FANTASY WAY: over 50 pages of Digby's poetry and
songs, illustrations by Kaja Foglio, Phil Foglio, Teddy Harvia,
and Brad Foster. Published for the San Francisco Worldcon where
Tom was one of the Honored Guests. $5 including postage.
CON CHORDS AND CHORUSES for Conchord 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15... at $5 each
plus postage, with profits going to Conchord. See
http://www.theStarport.com/xeno/conchordbook.html for a list of their
songs.
CONSONANTAL SHIFT for Consonance 2002...at $5 plus postage, with
profits
going to Consonance.
Make checks out to "Lee Gold". Send them to:
Lee Gold
3965 Alla Road
Los Angeles, CA 90066
United States
Michael Hopcroft
By the way, anyone who wants to hear ":Love Song From a Chimera" and
avrious other of my anime filks, I'm going to be doing an Anime Filk event
at SakuraCon in April (www.sakuracon.org)
Which, in itself, surprises me, as there are very few filk events at
anime cons. They're more into karaoke.
Michael Hopcroft
Margaret Middleton
Every time I see something with that author credited, I get a quick Zenna
Henderson Moment. HER character's last name, though, was Kroginold and IIRC
were twin brothers, one of whom was named Josh.
MSMinLR(at)aol.com (Margaret Middleton)
Shameless Plug for our local con: http://www.rockon.org
Help make a Quilted Artifact to sell for Interfilk:
http://members.aol.com/msminlr/ifquilt.htm
Andrew Ross
(and most important) verses were left out, so I'll post the full version
here. And yes, every detail in the song was reported as true in an
Associated Press article.
Leslie Fish tells me she sang it at ConChord, which made me proud as a bug
in a rug...
AIR JORDAN (a happy, uplifting terrorism song)
Lyrics by Andrew Ross
Sung to: The Good Ruben James, by Woody Guthrie
After Bin Laden came a tale in the news
About a keystone culprit with explosives in his shoes
He tried to blow a plane up; he never thought he'd fail
But tonight he's locked up tight in a Massachusetts jail
CHORUS: Who did the deed, tell me, who did the deed?
Did you have a friend who subdued Richard Reid? (x2)
Hermis Moutardier was a woman on the crew
She saw Richard Reid touching matches to his shoe
She smelled the smoke and knew that Richard had become unglued
Geoff Bessin, back in coach, just thought the smell was airline food
Reid struck another match, but he was a trifle slow
Cristina Jones, a flight attendant, called for H2O
And Maija Karhusaari, the drink brigade she led
As the cabin rose as one and dumped their drinks on Richard's head!
They passed their belts and headphone cords, and ribbons from their hair
And Richard Reid was wrapped up like a mummy in his chair
The ones who restrained him, remember their names
Geoff Bessin, Eric Derby, Marcel Lu and Kwame James
Now those goons at "Home Security" who make you feel so small
They've gone through all your luggage, but they haven't helped at all
Their detectors, dogs and searches could not keep the foe at bay
It was passengers like you who were the heroes of the day!
Lee Gold
>
> This filk was printed in Xenofilkia #82, but for some reason the last two
> (and most important) verses were left out, so I'll post the full version
> here. And yes, every detail in the song was reported as true in an
> Associated Press article.
They were omitted because they weren't in the email you sent me.
I'll print them (or maybe the whole song again) in #84.
*sigh*
--Lee
Larry Kirby
>AIR JORDAN (a happy, uplifting terrorism song)
>Lyrics by Andrew Ross
I like this. It is uplifting. Pacifism and non-violence are wonderful,
as long as there are others the pacifists can hide behind...hmmmmm...there's a
filk in there...
good song, Andrew.
Larry
I finally remembered how to change my sig
Heather Rose Jones
>
> In article <a72eru$b...@garcia.efn.org>, ar...@efn.org (Andrew Ross) writes:
>
> >AIR JORDAN (a happy, uplifting terrorism song)
> >Lyrics by Andrew Ross
>
> I like this. It is uplifting. Pacifism and non-violence are wonderful,
> as long as there are others the pacifists can hide behind...
That strikes me as a rather clueless statement. There have been plenty
of pacifists who have been willing to die for their beliefs. They just
haven't been willing to kill for them. There's a big difference there.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Sandy Tyra
> In article <3C95350D...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
> Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > That strikes me as a rather clueless statement. There have been plenty
> > of pacifists who have been willing to die for their beliefs. They just
> > haven't been willing to kill for them. There's a big difference there.
>
> But I'm not willing to die for a pacifist's belief that fighting back is
> wrong.
> --
> Gary McGath gmc...@REMOVETHISmcgath.com http://www3.primushost.com/~gmcgath/
> rw-rw-rw-: The Access of Evil
Or another way to put it is: The only thing nescessary for evil men to triumph is
for good men to do nothing.
That is: A Pacifist stands and dies for his beliefs allowing the evil ones to
continue.
BTW - Here are some questions/moral quandries for the pacifist:
1. If a pacifist sees his child is in danger (from attack), does he stand by and
let his child die for his (the pacifist's) belief that violence is wrong?
2. If a pacifist is being mugged, is he/she willing to accept the help of a
passing police officer - even if the help requires that the police officer use
violence?
Sandy
Sherman Dorn
news:20020317180454...@mb-mw.aol.com...
> I like this. It is uplifting. Pacifism and non-violence are
wonderful,
> as long as there are others the pacifists can hide
behind...hmmmmm...there's a
> filk in there...
Larry, you write the filk, and I'll parody it. ;-)
Sherman
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Gary McGath wrote:
>
> > In article <3C95350D...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
> > Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > That strikes me as a rather clueless statement. There have been plenty
> > > of pacifists who have been willing to die for their beliefs. They just
> > > haven't been willing to kill for them. There's a big difference there.
> >
> > But I'm not willing to die for a pacifist's belief that fighting back is
> > wrong.
> > --
> > Gary McGath gmc...@REMOVETHISmcgath.com http://www3.primushost.com/~gmcgath/
> > rw-rw-rw-: The Access of Evil
>
> Or another way to put it is: The only thing nescessary for evil men to triumph is
> for good men to do nothing.
>
> That is: A Pacifist stands and dies for his beliefs allowing the evil ones to
> continue.
<sigh> I knew I should have refrained from responding to political baiting.
If you think that pacifists "do nothing" you haven't known very many
pacifists. For a start, you might read up on the WWII activities of the
American Friends Service Committee.
Sandy Tyra
*baiting*? That term's a bit - uh - loaded, don't you think? Who was baiting?
Sandy
Heather Rose Jones
"Pacifism and non-violence are wonderful, as long as there are others
the pacifists can hide behind."
I consider a casual throw-away statement to the effect that all
pacifists are, by definition, cowards hiding behind others, to be
baiting. It's patently false, and furthermore it was completely
gratuitous in the thread. There are a significant number of people whom
I greatly respect and honor for their pacifism -- I don't care to stand
quietly by and see their deepest principles casually smeared as
cowardice. What was that line about "doing nothing"?
Stephen R. Savitzky
> Sandy Tyra wrote:
> >
> > Gary McGath wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3C95350D...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
> > > Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That strikes me as a rather clueless statement. There have been plenty
> > > > of pacifists who have been willing to die for their beliefs. They just
> > > > haven't been willing to kill for them. There's a big difference there.
> > >
> > > But I'm not willing to die for a pacifist's belief that fighting back is
> > > wrong.
> >
> > Or another way to put it is: The only thing nescessary for evil men
> > to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
> >
> > That is: A Pacifist stands and dies for his beliefs allowing the
> > evil ones to continue.
>
> <sigh> I knew I should have refrained from responding to political baiting.
>
> If you think that pacifists "do nothing" you haven't known very many
> pacifists. For a start, you might read up on the WWII activities of the
> American Friends Service Committee.
.. or Gandhi's autobiography. I should know better than to weigh in
here, but... Several people in this thread seem to be confusing
"pacifism" with "passivity" -- I'm willing to give them the benefit of
the doubt and assume that it's out of ignorance.
(As an aside, I would like to point out the fact that nothing that
happened in the Reid incident was inconsistent with any or all of the
participants being pacifists: Reid was, after all, not killed. I
will also note that few pacifists are so absolute in their beliefs as
to oppose killing in the extremity of self-defense, though most would
fervently hope not to have to put that particular principle to the test.
)
Pacifism, as exemplified by the the works of Gandhi, King, and Mandela,
among many others, is not so much an alternative to war as it is an
alternative to terrorism: a way in which a weak and powerless
population, possibly a minority, can defeat a powerful oppressor by
appealing to their sense of morality -- winning public opinion to their
side by making the other side look, and feel, like brutes rather than by
attempting to inflict terrible losses on them (the terrorist option,
which almost always has the opposite effect from the one the terrorists
intend).
It's well known that pacifism doesn't work well against an immoral,
insane, or impersonal adversary: many people went to jail during Vietnam
who would gladly have fought against Hitler. It's also well known -- or
it should be -- that simply standing aside and allowing evil to happen
is not pacifism; at best it's neutrality, and at worst (and more often)
cowardice. Whatever was going through the minds of the people on Flight
93, they made exactly the same choice that a dedicated pacifist would
have: to risk their own destruction in order to save others.
--
/ Steve Savitzky \ 1997 Pegasus Award winner: best science song--+ \
/ <st...@theStarport.org> http://theStarport.com/people/steve/ V \
\ hacker/songwriter: http://theStarport.com/people/steve/Doc/Songs/
\_ Kids' page: MOVED ---> http://Interesting.Places.to/Browse/forKids/ _/
Sandy Tyra
Eloquently said. A voice of sanity. Thank you, Steve.
Sandy
Larry Kirby
>That strikes me as a rather clueless statement.
Hardly clueless. A true pacifist cannot survive in a nation that has no
one to defend his pacifism. Ghandi and King would have been quickly killed in
a totalitarian country. There are very few absolute pacifists, I feel. I can
respect their beliefs, but insist they will always need protection. I firmly
believe in non-violence, I have walked away from more than one fight, "coward"
and "yellow" ringing in my ears; only to have these same people look at me in
wonderment when I beat someone bloody who was attacking my then 13 year old
sister. Violence should be a last resort, but it must always be a resort.
The violence by the civilians on Flight 93 saved (insert your favorite diety
here) knows how many lives.
Larry Kirby
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>I consider a casual throw-away statement to the effect that all
>pacifists are, by definition, cowards hiding behind others, to be
>baiting. It's patently false, and furthermore it was completely
>gratuitous in the thread. There are a significant number of people whom
>I greatly respect and honor for their pacifism -- I don't care to stand
>quietly by and see their deepest principles casually smeared as
>cowardice. What was that line about "doing nothing"
Pacifists are not cowards, but, like children, they must be defended from
those who would hurt them. You would not call a child a coward. It is not
patently false, history proves it correct again and again. I don't agree it
was gratuitous, either. I honor true pacifism, like Ghandi and King, though I
repeat their non-violent protests only worked because they were in basicly
civilized countries. Untill we are all civilized, there will always have to be
those who practice violence to protect the rest of us.
"Every one considered him, the coward of the county..."
Rob Wynne
> Pacifists are not cowards, but, like children, they must be defended from
>those who would hurt them. You would not call a child a coward. It is not
>patently false, history proves it correct again and again. I don't agree it
>was gratuitous, either. I honor true pacifism, like Ghandi and King, though I
>repeat their non-violent protests only worked because they were in basicly
>civilized countries. Untill we are all civilized, there will always have to be
>those who practice violence to protect the rest of us.
How patronizing.
I'm a pacifist. I abhor violent confrontation. I understand that it's
sometimes necessary, as a last resort when all reasonable means have been
exhausted. I regret when violent confrontation becomes the only method
that will satisfy a conflict.
I will defend my home, and my loved ones, using any means necessary.
But I reject the idea that we MUST use violence as a matter of course.
It must always be a last resort. Or we never /will/ all be civilized.
-R
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
The best original science-fiction and fantasy on the web:
Aphelion Webzine: http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Gafilk 2003: Jan 10-12, 2003, Atlanta, GA -- http://www.gafilk.org/
D.J.
mond...@aol.com (Larry Kirby) wrote:
] Pacifists are not cowards, but, like children, they must be defended from
] those who would hurt them. You would not call a child a coward. It is not
] patently false, history proves it correct again and again. I don't agree it
] was gratuitous, either. I honor true pacifism, like Ghandi and King, though I
] repeat their non-violent protests only worked because they were in basicly
] civilized countries. Untill we are all civilized, there will always have to be
] those who practice violence to protect the rest of us.
]
] "Every one considered him, the coward of the county..."
Just a datum point. I know a pacifist I do admire. He has stated to
me that he would put his body between an aggressor and the intended
victim, knowing he would probably be killed. He isn't a child-like
person at all.
JimP.
--
djim55 at tyhe datasync dot com. Disclaimer: Standard.
Updated: March 19, 2002
my 1E AD&D game world.
http://blue7green.crosswinds.net/crestar/index.html
bi...@bsutton.com
:>Just a datum point. I know a pacifist I do admire. He has stated to
:>me that he would put his body between an aggressor and the intended
:>victim, knowing he would probably be killed. He isn't a child-like
:>person at all.
But would that deter the attacker or simply up the body count?
Bill
--
Bill Sutton | Posting by and for myself alone
GAFilk 2003 | "'Tis said the newsgroup is a fine and private place
Jan 10-12 2003 | But none, I think, do there embrace..."
http://www.gafilk.org |
bi...@bsutton.com
:> Violence should be a last resort, but it must always be a resort.
Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
:>I will defend my home, and my loved ones, using any means necessary.
:>But I reject the idea that we MUST use violence as a matter of course.
:>It must always be a last resort. Or we never /will/ all be civilized.
Though the wording may have had rough edges, note the basic agreement.
I often express my doctrine as the desire to use the least amount of
interference that an opponent will understand - and to make sure that
interference is in proportion to my wants or needs.
Does anyone remember the source for "Never harm where holding is enough ..."?
Lee Gold
>
> Does anyone remember the source for "Never harm where holding is enough ..."?
“Never hold when talking is enough. Never harm when holding is enough.
Never kill when harming is enough.” A webpage credits it to
Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books.
Larry Kirby
writes:
>
>How patronizing.
Wasn't meant to be
>
>It must always be a last resort. Or we never /will/ all be civilized.
>
I though this was what I said
Larry Kirby
>“Never hold when talking is enough. Never harm when holding is enough.
>Never kill when harming is enough.” A webpage credits it to
>Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books.
>
This describes the way I feel better than I can word it.
bi...@bsutton.com
:>Does anyone remember the source for "Never harm where holding is enough ..."?
Send and ye shall find, as they say.
Stephen R. Donaldson, Thomas Covenant series.
Never hurt where holding is enough
Never harm where hurting is enough
Never kill where harming is enough
or something like that - I'll have tolook it up when I get home.
Rob Wynne
Fair enough. No harm, no foul.
>>It must always be a last resort. Or we never /will/ all be civilized.
> I though this was what I said
You did, but not in the message I was replying to. Remember that people
don't always see articles in the same order you do. (And even had I
noted it, I was still getting a bit weary of the blanket statements
about what pacifists believe. But I'm not gonna get in a fight about it
<g>)
Sherman Dorn
news:lUMl8.109$si2....@eagle.america.net...
> Stephen R. Donaldson, Thomas Covenant series.
>
> Never hurt where holding is enough
> Never harm where hurting is enough
> Never kill where harming is enough
Now, if only Donaldson had followed that dictum (and held off from most of
that series).
Sherman, ducking the vegetables
Sherman Dorn
> >"Never hold when talking is enough. Never harm when holding is enough.
...
> This describes the way I feel better than I can word it.
There are far more nuances here than the thread started out with, which is
why Heather responded earlier. Yes, I need to get this into a song at some
point, but at the moment the following will suffice:
-- The common definition of nonviolence as absolute (or impractical) and
passive is, in fact, partly a result of military definitions of
conscientious objection, NOT a consensus among those who oppose militarism.
For institutional reasons, the military does not allow soldiers to pick and
choose among wars to fight in. Thus, one can be a C.O. officially only if
one objects to ALL uses of military force, and draft boards have the power
to ask all sorts of questions about force in general (not just military
force).* Yet there are organizations which explicitly focus on such
selection -- Yesh Gvul, for example, in Israel
(http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english.html).
-- It is a double standard to call those who oppose militarism impractical
and dangerous when one points solely to situations where nonviolence appears
dangerous in a prima facia manner. (Whether it is so is not really the
point here.) I could as easily point to situations where violence seems
incredibly stupid to me; would it be intellectually honest to use those
situations to say that all members of the military are thus idiotic
warmongers who are ready to blow us all to smithereens?**
-- The ironies involving violence and nonviolence are too complex to just
state simply (e.g., "pacifists only survive because someone else is willing
to shoot," to use a particularly egregious phrase I haven't seen here). Let
me state two parallel ones, as examples: (1) the nonviolent direct-action
part of the modern civil rights movement (involving King and colleagues)
depended on the prior history of Black veterans after WWII coming home and
deciding they were not going to be second class citizens; (2) to whatever
extent the U.S. military is seens as meritocratic by Black and Latino
communities (and thus successful in recruiting), it is in part because of
the nonviolent civil rights movement that sharpened criticism of the Vietnam
War and the military and resulting efforts by the military to crack down on
explicit racism by officers and the creation of anti-discrimination
training. I won't go into the presumed "butterfly effect," but just point
out that we are all alive because of the pain and sacrifice of others whose
views we'd disagree with.
Sherman Dorn
http://www.geocities.com/shermandorn/
http://mp3.com/Sherman_Dorn/
* I'm using the present tense, by the way, because federal law allows the
instant creation of draft boards, the draft, and the classification of the
drafted.
** I'm not accusing Larry, by the way, of having made this type of argument.
Mark A. Mandel
:> > That strikes me as a rather clueless statement. There have been plenty
:> > of pacifists who have been willing to die for their beliefs. They just
:> > haven't been willing to kill for them. There's a big difference there.
and:
:> But I'm not willing to die for a pacifist's belief that fighting back is
:> wrong.
and:
: Or another way to put it is: The only thing nescessary for evil men to triumph is
: for good men to do nothing.
[...]
: BTW - Here are some questions/moral quandries for the pacifist:
[...]
Can this please be taken into either song or overflow?
-- Mark A. Mandel
"But as for me, I come for to filk"
not quite as sung by The Weavers
--
To reply by email, remove the obvious spam-blocker from my edress.
D.J.
bi...@bsutton.com wrote:
] D.J. <dji...@cheesedatasync.com> wrote:
] :>Just a datum point. I know a pacifist I do admire. He has stated to
] :>me that he would put his body between an aggressor and the intended
] :>victim, knowing he would probably be killed. He isn't a child-like
] :>person at all.
]
] But would that deter the attacker or simply up the body count?
Probably depend on the ethics of the attacker. Some attackers it
would deter them, others it would up the body count.
bi...@bsutton.com
:><bi...@bsutton.com> wrote in message
:>news:lUMl8.109$si2....@eagle.america.net...
Son, you're treadin' DANGEROUSLY close to a Religious War here :)
Sherman Dorn
Never criticize a book that's entertained ten million,
though you think the copies best to warm up your pavillion,
for though you think the plot's a crock,
the author's got a rabid flock.
No, never criticize bestsellers.
"And in the news headlines today, a mild-mannered professor from Tampa,
Florida, was dragged from his office and beaten by fans of Stephen R.
Donaldson for suggesting that the plot of the Thomas Covenant series was not
derivative, merely deranged and exploitive of reader's sympathies.
"The state attorney has declined to prosecute the attackers, saying that
Defending Famous Authors is a legitimate rationale for mayhem."
<bi...@bsutton.com> wrote in message
news:XO0m8.266$si2....@eagle.america.net...
Kay Shapero
Exuse me, folks, but may I peacefully request that the pacifism
discussion move elsewhere, like onto the overflow list? It's not very
active at the moment...
---
Kay Shapero
kaysh...@nospamearthlink.net
Remove the obvious spamblock to reply
filk FAQ http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/filkfaq.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/index.htm
Harold Groot
>:>Now, if only Donaldson had followed that dictum (and held off from most of
>:>that series).
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:14:15 GMT, bi...@bsutton.com wrote:
>Son, you're treadin' DANGEROUSLY close to a Religious War here :)
(Yes, I see the smiley). It's for this sort of reaction that I
learned to phrase all my reviews in terms of how a book, movie, song,
etc. affected ME. This does not attack the cherished opinion of the
other people. So I would not say that the works of Mr Donaldson are
of poor quality - that's an absolute judgement which would cast
aspersions on the people who like his work. Instead, I say that his
works don't do anything for me. The people who like his work are then
free to conclude that the fault lies in me if I don't like the stuff.
I don't try to convince them that they SHOULDN'T like Mr. Donaldson's
works, indeed I'm happy for anybody who has found a book they like. I
just wish that they, in turn, would not try so hard to convince me
that I SHOULD like the work. Live and let live on matters of taste
and preference.
Joel Polowin
> > Stephen R. Donaldson, Thomas Covenant series.
> >
> > Never hurt where holding is enough
> > Never harm where hurting is enough
> > Never kill where harming is enough
>
> Now, if only Donaldson had followed that dictum (and held off from most of
> that series).
Do not write a novella when a short story is enough
Do not write a novel when a novella is enough
Do not write a trilogy when a novel is enough
Do not write multiple trilogies when one trilogy is enough...
--
Joel Polowin jpolow...@sympatico.ca but delete "XYZZy" from address
"The Lady Arwen Undomiel, clad in shimmering Elven raiment, gave
to me the shards of Narsil in the forest of Imladris, signifying
by the will of Iluvatar that I, Aragorn, was to carry Narsil.
That is why I am your king." -- Monty Python and the One Ring
Larry Kirby
writes:
>But I'm not gonna get in a fight about it
><g>)
Me either. I did not mean to start anything here. This will be my last
comment on the subject. I consider myself non violent, meaning I will use
violence only as a last resort, when there is absolutely no other choice. I
will not use it to compare testosterone levels in a bar, or use my size in an
intimidating factor. A true buck pacifist (as Heinlein calls them) in my book
is one who will stand by and watch as a loved one is raped, beaten or killed
and do nothing because "it is against their principals". (You can't call the
police, you are just letting someone else handle the violence). I'm sorry, but
I can't help but feel these people are living in never-never land. I greatly
admire one willing to die for their beliefs, but sometimes dieing is easy. I
don't express myself as well as I'd like, but I think, as long as there is one
uncivilized person out there, we will need someone prepared to be violent. I
can't help but think of Somalia, and 600,000 dead by starvation, because a few
warlords contol the food. Some violence against them would be justified, in
my book.
Filksinger
>
> :>Does anyone remember the source for "Never harm where holding is enough
..."?
>
> Send and ye shall find, as they say.
>
> Stephen R. Donaldson, Thomas Covenant series.
>
> Never hurt where holding is enough
> Never harm where hurting is enough
> Never kill where harming is enough
>
> or something like that - I'll have tolook it up when I get home.
Do not hurt where holding is enough
Do not harm where hurting is enough
Do not kill where harming is enough
The greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill.
Oddly enough, I both subscribe to this, and most definitely do not consider
myself a pacifist. Note also that the last line strongly implies that
Donaldson was not talking about pacifism, either.
I'd say that at least half of this argument has started because the arguers
appear to be using at least three different definitions of pacifist.
Filksinger
Seamus
<20020320201143...@mb-cs.aol.com>:
>I
>can't help but think of Somalia, and 600,000 dead by starvation,
>because a few warlords contol the food. Some violence against
>them would be justified, in my book.
>
>Larry
>
The warlords control the food because they are better at violence.
You think the situation would be improoved if the civil war broke out
again?
I'm sure that not what you meant but it is pretty close to what you
said.
I feel the way to improve the world is to bring in some sort of
international legal system to replace fighting as a means of deciding
disputes (and I do know this will need an enforcement arm but there
is a significant difference between a cop and a soldier). I hope the
US decides to drop it's opposition to this.
joe
Sam Hane Detective Agency
>In article <3C979A0D...@attbi.com>, Lee Gold <lee...@attbi.com> writes:
>
>>“Never hold when talking is enough. Never harm when holding is enough.
>>Never kill when harming is enough.” A webpage credits it to
>>Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books.
>>
>
> This describes the way I feel better than I can word it.
>
And, interestingly enough, that very statement was repeatedly drummed
into our collective heads during the CCW qualification class........
AND when I served in law enforcement.
YES, it's real.
YES, it's loaded
YES, I will.
J. Bethancourt
"Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
at best it will break your heart, at worst, get you dead."
No Spam -- No Excuses --- No Prisoners
http://www.9thcavalry.com/
Sam Hane Detective Agency
>This filk was printed in Xenofilkia #82, but for some reason the last two
>(and most important) verses were left out, so I'll post the full version
>here. And yes, every detail in the song was reported as true in an
>Associated Press article.
>
>Leslie Fish tells me she sang it at ConChord, which made me proud as a bug
>in a rug...
>
>AIR JORDAN (a happy, uplifting terrorism song)
>Lyrics by Andrew Ross
>Sung to: The Good Ruben James, by Woody Guthrie
>
PEDANTRY ALERT .....
Tune should be creditied as "Rueben James" from: "Wildwood Flower"
Gerry Tyra
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Isaac Asimov, from the book Foundation, it appears as the chapter "The
Encyclopedists" by the character Salvor Hardin.
The good Doctor is right.
A competent person resorts to violence when it is the optimum solution.
Walk away when you can, talk your way out if you must. But when you are
on the ground, several ribs kicked in, and someone about to crush your
skull with a brick, it is not the time to decide to fight back.
Gerry
Mark A. Mandel
Sam Hane Detective Agency <Sam_...@weaselsnot.org.cn> wrote:
: PEDANTRY ALERT .....
: Tune should be creditied as "Rueben James" from: "Wildwood Flower"
"R<eu>ben", not "R<ue>ben". ... 'sOK, Joe, your nitpick is more important
than mine.
-- Dr. Whom, Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoepist, and
Philological Busybody
a.k.a. Mark A. Mandel
Leslie Fish
>
> I like this. It is uplifting. Pacifism and non-violence are
wonderful,
> as long as there are others the pacifists can hide
behind...hmmmmm...there's a
> filk in there...
Heheheheh! I thought of writing one myself, a few times! I remember,
during the anti-war days, how the total-pacifist types used to annoy me by
refusing to take responsibility for their own defense -- leaving other
people, like me, to do it for them. *Sigh*
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3C95350D...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
> There have been plenty
> of pacifists who have been willing to die for their beliefs.
And just what good does that do? Presenting an easy kill to somebody
who revels in killing doesn't stop his behavior. The assumption behind the
theory of pacifism is flawed; it holds that everybody else is basically as
kind and empathetic as the believer, and therefore wouldn't hurt anybody who
wasn't a threat. This assumption ignores the thousands (millions?) of
people in the world who are basically mean and arrogant, and are quite happy
to kill "infidels", "witches", "enemies of the state", or anybody else
targeted by a fashionable excuse.
I once read a marvelous alternate-history story (in one of Jerry
Pournelle's collections, I think) about what would have happened if the
Nazis had taken India in WWII, and Ghandi had tried his non-violent tactics
on them. It wound up, of course, with Ghandi getting shot and his people
being enslaved to the Nazis. Ghandi's tactics worked on the British only
because the Brits DID have strong moral scruples against shooting unarmed
and nonthreatening people. The Nazis certainly didn't.
This illustrates why pacifism is a very limited tactic, and not a
realistic philosophy.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
>
> If you think that pacifists "do nothing" you haven't known very many
> pacifists. For a start, you might read up on the WWII activities of the
> American Friends Service Committee.
It's quite true that, in any war, there are far more people working in
industries which support the troops than there are troops in the field.
Such behind-the-lines support and rescue work is certainly necessary, and is
certainly something that a pacifist can do. This doesn't change the fact
that pacifism itself is shaky as a philosophy and limited as a tactic.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Sam Hane Detective Agency
> * * * WARNING! NITPICK ALERT * * *
>
>
>Sam Hane Detective Agency <Sam_...@weaselsnot.org.cn> wrote:
>: PEDANTRY ALERT .....
>
>: Tune should be creditied as "Rueben James" from: "Wildwood Flower"
>
>"R<eu>ben", not "R<ue>ben". ... 'sOK, Joe, your nitpick is more important
>than mine.
>
Toe maeny Uemlaeuets oen my mind ......
Leslie Fish
>
> I consider a casual throw-away statement to the effect that all
> pacifists are, by definition, cowards hiding behind others, to be
> baiting. It's patently false, and furthermore it was completely
> gratuitous in the thread. There are a significant number of people whom
> I greatly respect and honor for their pacifism -- I don't care to stand
> quietly by and see their deepest principles casually smeared as
> cowardice. What was that line about "doing nothing"?
Hmmm, I didn't think that statement was either a smear or irrelevant.
The theme of the song is that the average citizen can and should jump up and
deal with the Bad Guys themselves, not just sit passively by and wait for
"specialists" to do their defending for them. The problem of pacifism IS
that, in the real world, pacifists can't survive without the shield of
non-pacifists who do their defending for them. This has nothing to do with
cowardice; it has to do with a philosophical flaw.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Rob Wynne" <d...@america.net> wrote in message
news:dsJl8.59$si2....@eagle.america.net...
> I'm a pacifist.
Hmm, technically, your following statement proves that you aren't.
I abhor violent confrontation. I understand that it's
> sometimes necessary, as a last resort when all reasonable means have been
> exhausted. I regret when violent confrontation becomes the only method
> that will satisfy a conflict.
That IS a civilized attitude. Saying "I will not fight unless I'm
attacked" (which implies that you're quite capable of fighting effectively
if you must) is very different from saying "I will not fight at all" (which
implies that you're an easy target).
>
> I will defend my home, and my loved ones, using any means necessary.
> But I reject the idea that we MUST use violence as a matter of course.
I don't think anybody here -- or elsewhere in the US, outside of a few
outright crooks and psychopaths -- thinks it right to "use violence as a
matter of course".
>
> It must always be a last resort. Or we never /will/ all be civilized.
Hmmm, but there have been cases when leaving violence as a LAST resort
made things worse. Hitler aided and encouraged Franco to take over Spain
during the Spanish Civil War, giving him modern weapons and equipment,
partly to test out the new equipment and partly to test the political waters
of Europe. When nobody came to the aid of the Spanish Republic, allowing
Franco to win, Hitler assumed that all Europe would be an easy mark. The
result was World War II. If the other nations of Europe (and America) had
promptly jumped in on the side of the Spanish Republic (as Spain repeatedly
begged them to), trounced Franco and driven off his army, Hitler would have
reconsidered his dreams of empire. The same would have applied to the
Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Think how profoundly history would have
been changed if World War II had never happened -- starting with some 45
million lives that would not have been lost.
Of course, the trick is knowing just when to use preventative force --
but that's a problem of intelligence, in every sense of the word.
The trick is to use violence intelligently. You can't do that if you
insist on leaving it as a "last resort" only, or if you assume that violence
(like sex!) is something you mustn't think about until absolutely necessary.
I've noticed that right-wingers tend to get hysterically illogical about
sex, and left-wingers tend to get hysterically illogical about violence --
and they're both wrong. Sex and violence are not taboo sujects to censor
out of public view; they both have to be considered rationally, looked at
and thought about, a lot, or we simply won't know how to do them well -- and
therby turns a lot of the world's misery.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Lee Gold" <lee...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C979A0D...@attbi.com...
> "Never kill when harming is enough."
Too true! In World War II, the Japanese soon came to the conclusion
that the best place to shoot an American soldier was...in the leg. Why?
Because if they shot in a vital spot and killed him, his buddies would fight
on. If they shot in the arm, the soldier would walk himself back to the
nearest aid-station. But if they shot in the leg, at least one of his
buddies would help carry him back to the aid-station. In other words, a
kill-shot or an arm-wound would take only one soldier out of action, but a
leg-wound would remove at least two.
Consider the tactics of mercy.
Lee Gold
>
> * * * WARNING! NITPICK ALERT * * *
>
> Sam Hane Detective Agency <Sam_...@weaselsnot.org.cn> wrote:
> : PEDANTRY ALERT .....
>
> : Tune should be creditied as "Rueben James" from: "Wildwood Flower"
>
> "R<eu>ben", not "R<ue>ben". ... 'sOK, Joe, your nitpick is more important
> than mine.
Reuben is how the NAME is usually spelled.
But all the song citations I've seen say RUEBEN.
--Lee
Leslie Fish
"Gerry Tyra" <ge...@sa-tech.com> wrote in message
news:3C9BB029...@sa-tech.com...
> Or....
>
> "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
>
> A competent person resorts to violence when it is the optimum solution.
The Spanish Civil War, again! The trick, of course, is knowing just
WHEN it's the optimum solution. THAT knowledge isn't being taught in
anywhere near enough schools.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Sherman Dorn" <sd...@tempest.coedu.usf.edu> wrote in message
news:a7a96v$i79$1...@news.usf.edu...
>
> "And in the news headlines today, a mild-mannered professor from Tampa,
> Florida, was dragged from his office and beaten by fans of Stephen R.
> Donaldson for suggesting that the plot of the Thomas Covenant series was
not
> derivative, merely deranged and exploitive of reader's sympathies.
>
> "The state attorney has declined to prosecute the attackers, saying that
> Defending Famous Authors is a legitimate rationale for mayhem."
Ahahahahah! Add spice to the lives of critics! The only books I've
ever heard of that caused wars, or even riots, were...hmmm, "holy" ones.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
>I can't help but think of Somalia, and 600,000 dead by starvation, because
a few
> warlords contol the food. Some violence against them would be
justified, in
> my book.
Very true. Killing people by denying them food (or water, or medicine,
or...) is just as violent as killing them by shooting. This is where the
old Wobbly term "class war" begins to take on meaning.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Seamus" <sham...@fireball.co.uk> wrote in message
news:91D9619Ashamel...@217.32.252.50...
> mond...@aol.com
> The warlords control the food because they are better at violence.
More specifically, they have all the weapons. If their victims were
armed, they wouldn't have this advantage.
> You think the situation would be improoved if the civil war broke out
again?
I think the best improvement would be several judicious asassinations,
but failing that, better to arm the people and let -- or help -- them take
out their oppressors than let them die of starvation. To put it the worst
way, a bullet kills quicker than hunger.
>
> I feel the way to improve the world is to bring in some sort of
> international legal system to replace fighting as a means of deciding
disputes
Ahahahah! One Big Government, you mean? And where is there a
government that can't be corrupted? Where there are several governments,
the people at least have the hope that they can sic one on the other and
thereby get some relief. With just One Big Government, what could oppose it
but a worldwide revolution?
(and I do know this will need an enforcement arm but there
> is a significant difference between a cop and a soldier).
Historically, not that much. For most of history, the soldiers WERE the
cops. It wasn't until the 19th century that Sir Robert Peel organized the
first civilian police force in Britain; they wore bowler hats and street
clothes to emphasize that they were civilian, not military, and carried
clubs rather than guns, for the same reason. The first American police were
elected constables and sheriffs, who wore badges but no uniforms, and were
armed no better than the rest of the populace.
Over the last century, alas, the line between police and military has
become increasingly blurred, with the police sliding more toward military --
and often using military weaponry (as vis. the Waco incident). This is Not
A Good Idea. Now, how would you prevent your One Big Government from
getting into that slippery slope? Who would watch the watchers? (No
laughing, you Highlander fans!)
I hope the
> US decides to drop it's opposition to this.
Frankly, I think the best thing that could happen to Somalia would be to
lose a war to the US! (Sometimes wars do make the situation better, as vis.
Afghanistan.) Then, at least, the warlords would be gone and the people
could get food.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"D.J." <dji...@cheesedatasync.com> wrote in message
news:lbpe9usrlttbbccr6...@4ax.com...
>
> Just a datum point. I know a pacifist I do admire. He has stated to
> me that he would put his body between an aggressor and the intended
> victim, knowing he would probably be killed.
The problem with that is, once he was killed by said aggressor, what
would be left to keep that aggressor from going right back after the initial
victim? The way you stop a victimizer is to STOP him -- not just offer him
an appetizer-victim.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Gary McGath" <gmc...@REMOVETHISmcgath.com> wrote in message
news:gmcgath-39A3DF...@reader2.panix.com...
.
>
> Turning this back to music, there is a song sometimes heard at
> filksings, "Paint a Rainbow," which claims that the people fighting for
> the enemy are really folks just like us, and we should be making friends
> with them. I don't see how any honest person can believe that as a
> universal principle after September 11.
I guess what it boils down to is that pacifists don't agree that there
really are evil people in the world.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Gary McGath" <gmc...@REMOVETHISmcgath.com> wrote in message
>
> pacifism: 1. opposition to war or violence as a means of settling
> disputes; specif. refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds.
> 2. an attitude or policy of nonresistance.
>
That's the definition I've always seen used.
> But the discussion up to this point has been to
> pacifism as a philosophy, not to specific actions of non-violent
> resistance. Pacifism as a philosophy is expressed, for instance, in
> Jesus's advice to turn the other cheek and similar statements of his.
>
> But a philosophical (definition 1) pacifist would not have fought
> against Hitler, either. Such a person might have gone to great risks to
> bring Jews to safety; but a society operating on the premise of
> rejecting fighting on principle would be destroyed, regardless of how
> dedicated it was to rescuing people.
Exactly the problem. You can't stop an attacker with a shield alone;
sooner or later, you have to use a sword.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Mark A. Mandel" <m...@TheWorld.Take-This-Out.com> wrote in message
news:Gt94E...@world.std.com...
>
> Can this please be taken into either song or overflow?
There's a very good song about just this situation in the 9/11 Memorial
Songbook.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Kay Shapero" <kaysh...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.170290297...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> Exuse me, folks, but may I peacefully request that the pacifism
> discussion move elsewhere, like onto the overflow list? It's not very
> active at the moment...
Sorry, I came in late.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
>
> Reuben is how the NAME is usually spelled.
> But all the song citations I've seen say RUEBEN.
>
naval hero. Woody Guthrie got the story from a newspaper clipping, and
wrote his song about it. I don't know when or where the song was
copyrighted, but somewhere in there a typo crept in.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Mark A. Mandel
: I once read a marvelous alternate-history story (in one of Jerry
: Pournelle's collections, I think) about what would have happened if the
: Nazis had taken India in WWII, and Ghandi* had tried his non-violent tactics
: on them. It wound up, of course, with Ghandi getting shot and his people
: being enslaved to the Nazis. Ghandi's tactics worked on the British only
: because the Brits DID have strong moral scruples against shooting unarmed
: and nonthreatening people.** The Nazis certainly didn't.
* Gandhi: the "h" is after the "d", not after the "G".
** Agreed!
-- Mark A. Mandel
D.J.
"Leslie Fish" <lesli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
] "D.J." <dji...@cheesedatasync.com> wrote in message
Oh, I know. But I do respect his willingness to step between an
aggressor and a victim. He does walk the walk. I just don't think he
would live long if he did such a thing in war time.
JimP.
--
djim55 at tyhe datasync dot com. Disclaimer: Standard.
Updated: March 21, 2002
my 1E AD&D game world.
http://blue7green.crosswinds.net/crestar/index.html
D.J.
"Leslie Fish" <lesli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
] It's quite true that, in any war, there are far more people working in
] industries which support the troops than there are troops in the field.
] Such behind-the-lines support and rescue work is certainly necessary, and is
] certainly something that a pacifist can do. This doesn't change the fact
] that pacifism itself is shaky as a philosophy and limited as a tactic.
I don't remember if the guy was a pacifist or not. I do know he was
an objector. He joined the US Marine Corps. Became a medic. He died
on a Pacific Island, getting Marines to aid stations, he was wounded
a number of times. He earned the Congressional Medal of Honor,
posthumously. Sorry I don't remember his name, but it is on the list
of honorees.
Lee Gold
>
> I don't remember if the guy was a pacifist or not. I do know he was
> an objector. He joined the US Marine Corps. Became a medic. He died
> on a Pacific Island, getting Marines to aid stations, he was wounded
> a number of times. He earned the Congressional Medal of Honor,
> posthumously. Sorry I don't remember his name, but it is on the list
> of honorees.
>
http://www.suck.com/daily/99/06/01/
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/history/MOH/dossd.htm
but he didn't die.
http://www.cmhep.org/B5ConscientiousObj/Supp/DesmondDoss.htm
On Oct. 12, 1945, Desmond Doss received the Medal of Honor from
President Truman. He would spend a total of six years in hospitals
as a consequence of his wounds and a bout with tuberculosis. Today,
almost totally deaf, Doss lives with his wife in the mountain
community of Rising Fawn, GA, where he serves his church with all the
quiet determination he once put at the service of his country.
Lizard
<lesli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Exactly the problem. You can't stop an attacker with a shield alone;
>sooner or later, you have to use a sword.
Well, I dunno. You sharpen the edge of the shield, then, trip the
attacker, and "off with 'is 'ead!"
Humans have been very, very, good at making weapons out of whatever
they find. Tie some farm implements to a stick, and you have polearms
which can unhorse a knight and turn him into hamburger. If you are
denied even metal farming tools (as in Japan), you learn to kill with
your hands. Tie the hands -- and you develop Capoeira.
Anything, really, can be a weapon, once you've decided that it's time
to find a weapon.
Of course, this is not denying your point, merely amplifying it -- to
be totally unwilling to fight is simply not typical of being human. We
have always found ways to fight, no matter the odds. It's our nature.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
D.J.
Lee Gold <lee...@attbi.com> wrote:
] "D.J." wrote:
] >
] > I don't remember if the guy was a pacifist or not. I do know he was
] > an objector. He joined the US Marine Corps. Became a medic. He died
] > on a Pacific Island, getting Marines to aid stations, he was wounded
] > a number of times. He earned the Congressional Medal of Honor,
] > posthumously. Sorry I don't remember his name, but it is on the list
] > of honorees.
] >
] Desmond T. Doss.
] http://www.suck.com/daily/99/06/01/
] http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/history/MOH/dossd.htm
] but he didn't die.
Thank you for the info. Evidently my brain hiccuped or forgot.
filceolaire
<Igen8.1438$LJ2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
Maybe they just don't trust the US government to decide for them who
is and isn't evil.
Remember the US supported Al Qaeda when they opposed the Russians and
later supported the Taliban when they opposed the corrupt warlords of
the Northern alliance. Were they evil then?
Remember that the war in afghanistan has killed more innocent
civilians than were killed on Sept 11. Does that make you evil?
Oppose evil. Use violence as required to defeat it. Just don't start
to think that because you are stronger and can defeat it that means
you must be right.
Joe
joe
I did hear of a group of pacifists in England, in 1940, who refused
to do any war work except planting trees on the grounds that they did
not want and would not support others fighting on their behalf.
Joe
filceolaire
> Of course, the trick is knowing just when to use preventative
> force --
>but that's a problem of intelligence, in every sense of the word.
> The trick is to use violence intelligently. You can't do that
> if you
>insist on leaving it as a "last resort" only, or if you assume
>that violence (like sex!) is something you mustn't think about
>until absolutely necessary. I've noticed that right-wingers tend
>to get hysterically illogical about sex, and left-wingers tend to
>get hysterically illogical about violence -- and they're both
>wrong. Sex and violence are not taboo sujects to censor out of
>public view; they both have to be considered rationally, looked
>at and thought about, a lot, or we simply won't know how to do
>them well -- and therby turns a lot of the world's misery.
>--
> --Leslie <;)))><
>
I do agree with this.
I think we should stop there much as I would like to develop this
argument as to where and how violence can and should be used to help
establish peace and justice.
Joe
Heather Rose Jones
The above references to "behind-the-lines" and "tree planting"
demonstrate that you didn't bother to look up the above organization's
activities. It's really easy to think what you like about people you
disagree with if you ignore any inconvenient facts.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Sandy Tyra
Which in no way altered the fact that the folks who did fight Hitler with
guns and bombs did so on behave of those planting trees (as well as the
rest of the population, of course.)
Sandy
Kay Shapero
joe.r...@NOSPAMbtinternet.com says...
> I think we should stop there much as I would like to develop this
> argument as to where and how violence can and should be used to help
> establish peace and justice.
>
Take it to the overflow mailing list, and you can discuss it as long as
you like. That's what the thing's for.
--
Kay Shapero
kaysh...@nospamearthlink.net
Remove the obvious spamblock to reply
filk FAQ http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/filkfaq.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/index.htm
Sherman Dorn
news:91DCD6F53joera...@217.32.252.50...
> lesli...@earthlink.net (Leslie Fish) wrote in
> > I guess what it boils down to is that pacifists don't agree
> > that there really are evil people in the world.
> Maybe they just don't trust the US government to decide for them who
> is and isn't evil.
Bingo, and maybe many of us don't trust the way that militarism expands in
general with wars -- and militarism is not consonant with fighting a war.
Sherman Dorn, who has a chorus written for an anti-militarist torch song.
Heather Rose Jones
>
> In article <3C9FBDC6...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
> Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I did hear of a group of pacifists in England, in 1940, who refused
> > > to do any war work except planting trees on the grounds that they did
> > > not want and would not support others fighting on their behalf.
> > >
> > > Joe
> >
> > The above references to "behind-the-lines" and "tree planting"
> > demonstrate that you didn't bother to look up the above organization's
> > activities. It's really easy to think what you like about people you
> > disagree with if you ignore any inconvenient facts.
>
> "the inconvenient fact" is that they actually didn't plant trees, how do
> you identify it with the one to which he referred?
Um ... no, "the above organization" would be the one mentioned in the
previous layer of quoting from me (which you have
snipped) which presumably was what the next two posters were responding
to (since they had appended their text to it).
Leslie Fish
"filceolaire" <joe.r...@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:91DCD6F53joera...@217.32.252.50...
>
> is and isn't evil.
The obvious answer here is not to trust ANY government to decide that
for you.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Resident Anarchist
Leslie Fish
"Lizard" <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote in message
news:05ks9u4sjieaourh0...@4ax.com...
> Humans have been very, very, good at making weapons out of whatever
> they find. Anything, really, can be a weapon, once you've decided that
it's time
> to find a weapon.
Quite true, at which point the only difference is the range at which
it's effective. The greater the range at which you can hit your enemy --
with bow, sling, blowgun or anything else -- the less chance he has of
hurting your and yours. For just that reason, I see no moral superiority in
close-range weapons.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"joe" <joe.r...@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:91DCE570A...@217.32.252.50...
> I did hear of a group of pacifists in England, in 1940, who refused
> to do any war work except planting trees on the grounds that they did
> not want and would not support others fighting on their behalf.
Alas, even planting trees -- or crops -- can support a war effort. I
learned this the hard way, back during Vietnam, when I tried to find work
that didn't support the war effort. What I wound up with were jobs that
supported the war at only a distant remove; I couldn't find ANY that were
"pure", and believe me, I looked.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3CA1244A...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
>
> Um ... no, "the above organization" would be the one mentioned in the
> previous layer of quoting from me (which you have
> snipped) which presumably was what the next two posters were responding
> to (since they had appended their text to it).
Hmmm. Rescue work would obviously be in the front lines (unless you
include digging out victims of bombing raids at home), but I have difficulty
seeing anyone doing tree-planting anywhere except behind the lines.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Gerry Tyra
Okay, here is the flip side of your search for a "war free" environment.
In the mid 80's I was working in St. Louis for a defense contractor. At
time, we were working on various radar system for various uses.
I was in the terminal room (this was before it was "normal" to have a
terminal on every desk, let alone a computer), working on some code. A
very junior engineer was having a conversation with one of the older
(but not as old as I am now, sigh) engineers just behind me. It was a
debate/discussion on the pros and cons of capital punishment. Without
getting into the politics of that argument, let it just be said that the
kid was throwing out every cliché reason against a death sentence that
was ever published. He had taken his moral stand on sound bites.
After one too many sound bites, while I was trying to work, I turned
around and asked, "Does this mean that you are opposed to killing for
any reason?"
He answered, "Yes."
I asked, "Even in war?"
He answered, "Yes."
So, I said, "Then quit your job and get out of here right now."
He looked at me like I had just hit him, and asked, "Why?"
I answered, "What do you think we -do- here?"
End of conversation, and I got back to working on a proposal for mods to
the B-52.
I have no problem with a strong moral stand, even if I disagree with
it. It is hypocrisy that I can't stand.
Gerry
Mary Creasey
Gerry Tyra <ge...@sa-tech.com> wrote in message
news:3CAA5D99...@sa-tech.com...
> Leslie,
>
> Okay, here is the flip side of your search for a "war free" environment.
[snip most of story]
> So, I said, "Then quit your job and get out of here right now."
>
> He looked at me like I had just hit him, and asked, "Why?"
>
> I answered, "What do you think we -do- here?"
>
> End of conversation, and I got back to working on a proposal for mods to
> the B-52.
So, drop the other shoe--did he quit?
> I have no problem with a strong moral stand, even if I disagree with
> it. It is hypocrisy that I can't stand.
Agree there.
Mary
Gerry Tyra
Mary Creasey wrote:
>
> Gerry Tyra <ge...@sa-tech.com> wrote in message
> news:3CAA5D99...@sa-tech.com...
> > So, I said, "Then quit your job and get out of here right now."
> >
> > He looked at me like I had just hit him, and asked, "Why?"
> >
> > I answered, "What do you think we -do- here?"
> >
> > End of conversation, and I got back to working on a proposal for mods to
> > the B-52.
>
> So, drop the other shoe--did he quit?
Well, he was from a different department, and I didn't know him. But I
don't remember seeing him around after that. But, then again, I moved
on to another company not too long after that.
Gerry
Leslie Fish
> In the mid 80's I was working in St. Louis for a defense contractor. At
> time, we were working on various radar system for various uses.
<snip>
> I answered, "What do you think we -do- here?"
I can't believe he didn't know! Just how naive WAS this guy?
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Gerry Tyra
I would call it a case of hypocrisy through willful ignorance, combined
with the fact that I trapped him. He had a moral position and the
previous discussion had gotten him defensive. His position was
compounded by the fact that he hadn't made the moral distinction between
killing and murder (with capital punishment argued as state sanctioned
murder). Rather, he had bought the idea that all killing was wrong. He
looked at his job as simple engineering. I connected the dots for him.
Gerry
Andrew Ross
>> In the mid 80's I was working in St. Louis for a defense contractor. At
>> time, we were working on various radar system for various uses.
> <snip>
>> I answered, "What do you think we -do- here?"
> I can't believe he didn't know! Just how naive WAS this guy?
"But--but it says *defense*, not *war*...I mean these radar
systems are so we can detect an incoming missile, and, um, get out of the
way...right?"
Best,
Andrew Ross
"Q: So you say his military career is a result of his mental illness?
A: Most military careers are."
--Herman Wouk, THE CAINE MUTINY