The Crazy Years?
Les Hemmings
regimes in order to find the common threads that mark them as fascist:
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal,
Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia.
He found 14 common characteristics:
"Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution,
a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly
being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these
are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."
We think "maybe not."
It's just a matter of degree.
Reading the daily news, we come across numerous critics of the Bush
Administration who document, point to, or warn about each of the
characteristics used to identify a fascist regime.
14 Characteristics Of A Fascist Political Party
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,
the fervour to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the
regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always
obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity
were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually
coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on
xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing
the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda,
the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other
problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
controlled directions. The methods of choice relentless propaganda and
disinformation were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
'spontaneous' acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists,
socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional
national enemies, members of other religions, secularists,
homosexuals, and 'terrorists.' Active opponents of these regimes were
inevitably labelled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure
that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The
military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used
whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations,
and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and
the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably
viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly
anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually
codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox
religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to
stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power
to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing
and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and
implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically
compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in
keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually
an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any
constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting
'national security,' and questioning its activities was portrayed as
unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless
by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves
to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray
themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the
ruling elite s behaviour was incompatible with the precepts of the
religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the
illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and
opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that
opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens.
10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labour was
seen as the one power centre that could challenge the political
hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was
inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass,
viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being
poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression
associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and
academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and
the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically
unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or
expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.
To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national
interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked
power, leading to rampant abuse. 'Normal' and political crime were
often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used
against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of
criminals or 'traitors' was often promoted among the population as an
excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and
close to the power elite often used their position to enrich
themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would
receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in
turn would gain the benefit of government favouritism. Members of the
power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other
sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the
national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this
corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the
general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or
public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with
candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power
elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining
control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising
opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a
last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
__________________________________________________________
Sound familiar?
Les UK (not too hot here either...)
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply.
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger "
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
As...@tds.com
<les.fron...@lobesvirgin.net> wrote:
>Sound familiar?
No. I won't actually quote the 14 points, but I will discuss each
one.
1. I don't think our displays of nationalism are any greater than any
other nation.
2. I have some issues with our record on human rights, but for the
most part we are better than most other nations this way.
3. Which group(s) are we allegedly scapegoating?
4. We have civilian control of the military to prevent this.
5. We may not have eliminated every single last vestige of sexism,
but I assure you that it is not rampant.
6. If we had any sort of controlled media, Cindy Sheehan would not
make headlines.
7. It might actually be possible to make a case for this one,
depending on how you define obsession. I would still favorably
compare us with most other countries.
8. Our First Amendment does a pretty good job of preventing this.
9. Ask the tobacco companies about this one.
10. Ask Northwest Airlines about this.
11. We subsidize these people.
12. Another one where definition of terms matters. The crime rate
has declined since we started getting tougher. I don't consider our
measures to be draconian, but YMMV.
13. Cronyism and corruption are going to happen as long as we are
human beings, but I think we have a better handle on it now than we
ever have in the past. It is far from "rampant."
14. Same as 13.
So, we have 2 that might fit if you stretch things a bit, and 12 that
don't.
Jason
Les Hemmings wrote:
> In 2002, Laurence W. Britt's Fascism Anyone? analyzed seven fascist
> regimes in order to find the common threads that mark them as fascist:
>
> Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal,
> Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia.
>
> He found 14 common characteristics:
>
> "Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
> America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution,
> a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly
> being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these
> are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."
I would think your comparison valid if the current regime manages to
remain in power past the mandated 2 term elections. Until then,
sometimes we are liberal, other times we are conservative. That's just
the way it is...
-Jason
Bruce Baker
"Les Hemmings" <les.fron...@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:3n6k3b...@individual.net...
> In 2002, Laurence W. Britt's Fascism Anyone? analyzed seven fascist
> regimes in order to find the common threads that mark them as fascist:
>
<SNIP>
> Sound familiar?
>
Uh, nope. Sorry, doesn't ring a bell.
IF you have a point to make, could you please make it as explicitly as
possible, so that even my poor benighted red-state-dwelling brain can
comprehend it? Please be as specific and comprehensive as possible, and cite
examples.
Thank you.
orwell
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I would think your comparison valid if the current regime manages to
remain in power past the mandated 2 term elections. Until then, sometimes
we are liberal, other times we are conservative. That's justthe way it
is...
Yes, but that kind of logic doesn't lend itself well to the melodramatic
teeth gnashing and chest thumping that makes good headlines.
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
willre...@yahoo.com
Les Hemmings wrote:
> In 2002, Laurence W. Britt's Fascism Anyone? analyzed seven fascist
> regimes in order to find the common threads that mark them as fascist:
>
> Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal,
> Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia.
Nitpick: While Nazi, Pinochet's Chile and Suharto's Indonesia fit your
fourteen points, none of them were formally Fascist regimes. Fascism
isn't just "any oppressive right-wing regime." It is a set of regimes
following the precepts set down in the early part of this century by an
Italian (I believe) theorist. Your source is defining Fascist, perhaps,
by the very fourteen points he finds in common among them. Backwards.
>
> He found 14 common characteristics:
>
> "Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
> America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution,
> a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly
> being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these
> are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."
>
> We think "maybe not."
>
> It's just a matter of degree.
>
> Reading the daily news, we come across numerous critics of the Bush
> Administration who document, point to, or warn about each of the
> characteristics used to identify a fascist regime.
>
>
> 14 Characteristics Of A Fascist Political Party
>
>
> 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
> prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,
> the fervour to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the
> regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always
> obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity
> were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually
> coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on
> xenophobia.
This is, in fact, a common thing for the nation-state. If it is merely
a matter of degree then the sight of crowds of Dutch fans waving orange
flags at a socker game would be frightening.
>
> 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
> viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing
> the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda,
> the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
> marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
> egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
If one defines the regime as the current ephemeral administration,
there might be a smidgen of truth to this. However, there are the
courts and the other political forces in our society to counteract the
administration. Even in their own party, there are those who oppose the
administration on these matters.
>
> 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
> significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
> scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other
> problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
> controlled directions. The methods of choice relentless propaganda and
> disinformation were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
> 'spontaneous' acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists,
> socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional
> national enemies, members of other religions, secularists,
> homosexuals, and 'terrorists.' Active opponents of these regimes were
> inevitably labelled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
Yes, the exile of the Democratic Party was a terrible thing. The camps
where the Libertarians were kept are now cleaned up and the evidence
is gone. The editorial staff of the NY Times murdered in their sleep.
Horrible.
Meanwhile, our enemies have identified themselves. The administration
may have extended the definition of our enemies when they included Iraq
but the enemies are real.
>
> 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
> identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure
> that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
> allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The
> military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used
> whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations,
> and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
Powerful nations with powerful militaries always meet this description.
INDIA, for ghu's sake, has shown that they would do exactly this if
they could.
>
> 5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and
> the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably
> viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly
> anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually
> codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox
> religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
There is opposition in this country to further PROGRESS in these
matters. However, there is great pressure for progress and the struggle
continues.
>
> 6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
> were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to
> stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power
> to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing
> and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and
> implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically
> compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in
> keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses.
There is nothing like an opposition media here since the brutal
suppression of the NYT and the Washington Post as shown in an earlier
part of this reply. Oh, right, that never happened.
>
> 7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
> apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually
> an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any
> constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting
> 'national security,' and questioning its activities was portrayed as
> unpatriotic or even treasonous.
This country was attacked. If the current administration is using this
as an excuse to curtail our liberties, and they might be, there are
forces in this country to make this more difficult.
>
> 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
> the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless
> by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves
> to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray
> themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the
> ruling elite s behaviour was incompatible with the precepts of the
> religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the
> illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and
> opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that
> opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
The administration is fairly attentive to the religious right. However,
this point does NOT fit Nazi Germany.
> 9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
> ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
> corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
> ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
> military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
> means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
> pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
> interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens.
Actually, the major Fascist regimes and the Nazis (who we remember were
NOT fascists) controlled the corporate sector rigidly. Hitler commented
that he had more control over the economy than Stalin did (he was
bragging and probably innacurate but he was not that far off) The
corporations usually prospered but they did as they were told.
>
> 10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labour was
> seen as the one power centre that could challenge the political
> hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was
> inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass,
> viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being
> poor was considered akin to a vice.
Labor, like management, was supposed to be united under the fascist
banner. Most of the fascisti had large segments of unionized labor
enthusiastically supporting them. Worker rallies in support of
Mussolini and Peron were not simply staged events. In this matter, our
current administration has missed out. They have little or no support
among organized labor, despite the fact that the Democrats have given
little but lip service to organized labor for years.
>
> 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
> Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression
> associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and
> academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and
> the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically
> unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or
> expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.
> To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national
> interest or they had no right to exist.
"Crushed" in what way? Oh, they are disliked and attacked, disagreed
with and debated. I guess we should have a law against disagreeing with
an intellectual.
>
> 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
> maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
> populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked
> power, leading to rampant abuse. 'Normal' and political crime were
> often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used
> against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of
> criminals or 'traitors' was often promoted among the population as an
> excuse for more police power.
The love of the cops has been growing for years. I don't share it but
it is not new here.
>
> 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and
> close to the power elite often used their position to enrich
> themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would
> receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in
> turn would gain the benefit of government favouritism. Members of the
> power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other
> sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the
> national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this
> corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the
> general population.
Finding that this is common to ALL regimes or ninety percent of them
would weaken this as an argument so it will not be mentioned.
>
> 14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or
> public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with
> candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power
> elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining
> control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising
> opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a
> last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Sound familiar?
>
Sounds like wild generalizations and nonsense, frankly. However, I
would not expect better from people who conflate Nazis and Fascists.
The Nazis were different and worse.
> Les UK (not too hot here either...)
Never too hot there. Foggy and rainy and maybe a bit warm but never too
hot.
Will in New Haven
--
"If I listened long enough to you,
I'd find a way to believe it was all true,
KNOWIN' that you lied, straight-faced while I cried,
Still I'd try to find a reason to believe."
Tim Hardin - "Reason to believe
Vance P. Frickey
Having read these characteristics, I think that
the only thing "proven" by the "numerous critics"
of the Bush administration is that their hatred of
the President has overtaken their regard for the
truth.
During the Clinton administration, more of the
characteristics (those having to do with too-cozy
a relationship between the communications and
press industries and the Leader) listed as
identifying a fascist regime were true than are
today.
Although in Clinton's case, I would use the term
"totalitarian" rather than "fascist" to describe
the sort of government the characteristics pointed
to, it remains the case that a supposedly
independent billion-dollar news industry circled
its wagons around their beloved Leader during the
impeachment hearings and ruined the lives of
Congressmen and Senators rash enough to demand
Clinton's dismissal for lying under oath in a
courtroom. Sex had nothing to do with it -
Clinton lied to protect not a lady's reputation
but his own pocketbook and possibly his standing
with his state bar association. And any other
lawyer - any other officer of the Court in this
country - would have been found guilty of perjury
under those circumstances, and the Constitution of
the United States of America happens to call for
the dismissal of any Federal official found guilty
of "high crimes and misdemeanors." In the United
States, perjury (lying under oath) is a felony.
The press exerted every effort possible to cover
Clinton's wrongdoing up, in order to preserve the
credibility of the leader of their preferred
political party.
The Clinton Administration was the lowest point
for democracy in the United States since the
epidemic of graft, the wholesale dispossession of
native Americans from their lands, the gifting of
these lands to the railroads in return for
generous bribes to Congress and Federal officials
and the violent whipsawing between the tyranny of
Reconstruction and the systematic destruction of
any gains African-Americans may have made after
Reconstruction by the Democratic Party in the
South following the War Between the States.
Anyone who thinks the Bush administration or the
Republican Party controls the press of the United
States of America is insane, under the influence
of hallucinogenic drugs or just flat-out ignorant
of the news as it is reported in this country.
Hurricane Katrina had not even made landfall
before the Democratic Party leadership in Congress
began making dire, scurrilous, and as it turned
out, false accusations that President Bush was
somehow responsible for the destruction unleashed
on a city built a dozen feet below sea level. I
grew up thirty miles outside New Orleans and
remember similar destruction - perhaps greater
destruction - in the wake of Hurricane Betsy.
Even thirty miles outside of New Orleans, I
remember doing my school homework by kerosene lamp
in the evenings for a month before electrical
power was restored.
During and after Betsy, however, a Democratic
president was in office, so the press very
carefully avoided comparisons of the human and
material devastation after Betsy and Katrina.
After Katrina, the press hung on every word from
the mouths of the opposition party in Congress and
reported every statement of theirs as though it
were proven fact. The press, in other words,
abdicated its duty to be objective in its
presentation of the news and acted as unofficial
public relations representatives of the opposition
party, distorting and misrepresenting facts with
abandon and enthusiasm. This, of course, is
nothing new for viewers of the American mainstream
press - we now know to read between the lines of
their broadcasts and filter out the inevitable
anti-government bias.
The President of the United States accepted
personal responsbility for the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina despite overwhelming evidence
that malfeasance or nonfeasance of local and state
officials at every level was proximately
responsible for any deaths and destruction which
might have been avoided during the storm or in her
wake. The press has very carefully avoided asking
New Orleans' mayor Ray Nagin how he came to be in
a room high in the Hyatt Regency during the
hurricane and not in the city's Emergency
Management center. The answer is simple - that
center was underwater at the time - but it would
have pointed up Mr. Nagin's complete failure to
prepare for a hurricane of the magnitude of
Katrina and the flooding which was entirely
predictable in its wake.
Instead, the press recorded Ray Nagin's lashing
out at the Federal Government and the President -
without reporting the fact that the Federal
Government was largely powerless to act because of
the absence of any city government through which
to coordinate aid or rescue efforts - and repeated
Nagin's rants - again - as straight news, not
within the context of Nagin's failure to plan or
prepare for a storm of Katrina's severity.
I wouldn't dare presume to comment on the accuracy
of British press reporting, since apart from
occasional BBC broadcasts from their New York
studios (I also watch Deutsche Welle every now and
then - we get them both through the Public
Broadcasting stations here in Denver) I haven't
read, seen or heard enough of them to fairly judge
them, much less to make sweeping statements about
their objectivity (apart from the existence of
something called a "D-Notice" by which Her
Majesty's Government can require the press to NOT
report certain news).
It staggers me, then, for foreigners to blithely
charge that the American press' being controlled
by the government (what _IS_ that guy smoking?) or
that there is any degree of totalitarianism or
fascism in the United States of America.
The charge made at the very beginning of this
thread - that "Reading the daily news, we come
across numerous critics of the Bush
Administration... document, point to, or warn
about each of the characteristics used to identify
a fascist regime," is itself the veriest disproof
of the charge. If we were a fascist state, then
the lies spouted by such people as House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi would have led to her
imprisonment or mysterious disappearance, along
with many other prominent members of her party.
But Ms Pelosi and her friends are safe, sound,
sleek and healthy, and the press report their
distortions of the facts and their outright lies
with impunity, because better men and women than
they will ever be died to defend their right to do
so. There are perfectly good people in this NG
with whose politics I couldn't disagree more, but
we would die to defend each others' right to be
completely and totally wrong. Freedom of speech
is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Unlike some
other countries, our nation's Constitution and our
rights are written, spelled out clearly and
plainly, and every schoolchild here is taught
them.
If the charges floated in the original post of
this thread had any foundation, we Americans would
never have been able to read them because that
post would, as is the practice in mainland,
Communist China, Russia, and in several countries
in Europe and Australasia, would have been
censored prior to being disseminated through the
nation's USENET servers. The only posts not
disseminated through USENET servers of the United
States are posts involving child pornography. The
rest of the world is welcome to that trash.
In fact, the country from which the author of this
post says he wrote that post censors its own media
on occasion. Most Americans have no idea what a
"D-Notice" is, and if our government ever tried to
inflict such nonsense on us, a change in
government would occur _tout suite_.
I shouldn't respond to what is very obvious
trolling of this nature, but it gives me great
pleasure to defend my country against the
desperate canards of America-bashers. Having
failed to make the little lies stick, the people
who hate our country are now hauling out the Big
Lies.
--
Vance P. Frickey
remove "nospam" from listed Email address to send
mail
"There is an uncomfortable similarity between
Damocles, who had everything but security, and the
West today. The main difference is that Damocles
could see the sword that threatened him and the
thin thread that restrained it, while today both
sword and thread seem unreal to all too many."
Herman Kahn, _On Thermonuclear War_.
Sean
> I shouldn't respond to what is very obvious trolling of this nature, but
> it gives me great pleasure to defend my country against the desperate
> canards of America-bashers. Having failed to make the little lies stick,
> the people who hate our country are now hauling out the Big Lies.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for 99% of Americans, their
history, their hard work and achievements. I'm not sure how widespread your
accusations are, but I would sincerely point out to you that honestly
generated criticism of the current US president and administration should
not, and if looked at honestly and dispassionately, can not be regarded as
"hating America". To claim this to be the case is only too obviously making
a defence of not America, but of the President, by linking criticism of him
and his policies directly with criticism of your country. Perhaps you cannot
see any difference, and take *any* criticism (especially by non-Americans)
as a personal affront to your country. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but
at least many others can recognise the difference.
More directly, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't think it
has been widely argued against that the current administration is probably
one of the most secretive, manipulative, arrogant and tightly controlled of
any administration previously. Whether any of these characteristics are
anywhere on the scale of Totalitarianism and/or Fascism, or how far up, I
honestly I don't know, and further to this - I don't care. I wasn't making
any such comparisons.
--
Sean
RAH on Australians in _Tramp Royale_ "They think as we do, only more so."
Vance P. Frickey
"Sean" <hcat...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:a44Ze.371$Tr1....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Vance:
>
>> I shouldn't respond to what is very obvious
>> trolling of this nature, but it gives me great
>> pleasure to defend my country against the
>> desperate canards of America-bashers. Having
>> failed to make the little lies stick, the
>> people who hate our country are now hauling out
>> the Big Lies.
>
> I have the greatest respect and admiration for
> 99% of Americans, their history, their hard
> work and achievements. I'm not sure how
> widespread your accusations are, but I would
> sincerely point out to you that honestly
> generated criticism of the current US president
> and administration should not, and if looked at
> honestly and dispassionately, can not be
If the comments I refer to were "honestly
generated criticism," that would be one thing.
But the comments I was responding to - the ones
immediately preceding my post - referred to a
nascent fascism in the United States of America
according to "numerous critics of the Bush
Administration who document, point to, or warn
about each of the characteristics used to identify
a fascist regime."
This is mealy-mouthed, intellectually dishonest
slander. The foundation of the charges is not
locatable as solid fact, but based on those
"numerous critics" and their "warnings."
I object to the lack of objective analysis or
presentation of supporting fact in the statement
immediately preceding mine.
To support what has to be the ultimate case of
Godwin's Law, consigning an entire nation - 270
million people - to the status of 'fascism,' we
need more that "warnings" from people who are not
identified and who present no proof of their
frankly amazing statement.
> To claim this to be the case is only too
> obviously making a defence of not America, but
> of the President, by linking criticism of him
> and his policies directly with criticism of your
> country.
Sean, more than half of us just re-elected GWB. I
certainly don't personally identify with the guy,
and I'm sure that not many people do, but his
policies reflect our political will. We're a
democracy, and our current policies reflect
deliberation between the President and Congress,
after our Representatives and Senators have
listened to our advice (I avail myself of the
privilege of writing and Emailing my people in
Congress frequently).
So, yes, if you have a problem with our country's
policies, you DO have a problem with America, and
well over half of the voting population.
It's no good patronizing us and saying that we
needn't take it personally when people make
ill-considered criticisms of our policies -
usually for self-serving motives, such as
accepting millions of dollars from the Chinese
army or the Russian mafiya (as the Clintons did)
for campaign costs.
Speaking of another argument that Clintonism (in
the person of Al Gore, etc.) was heading the
country in the direction of totalitarianism - when
the largest totalitarian state on Earth finances
President Clinton's campaign, it bespeaks a
greater than usual connection between the Clintons
and Red China, does it not? THAT is scary.
> Perhaps you cannot see any difference, and take
> *any* criticism (especially by non-Americans) as
> a personal affront to your country. I'm sorry if
> you feel that way, but at least many others can
> recognise the difference.
Again, please put the patronizing comments away.
They're simply evidence that you've run out of
facts to support your arguments.
I pride myself on educating myself on current
affairs and have a fair-to-middling knowledge of
geopolitics and economics. My fellow Americans
and I voted our current lot of politicians into
office, so the policies they enact are OUR
policies, like it or not.
> More directly, and please correct me if I am
> wrong, but I didn't think it has been widely
> argued against that the current administration
> is probably one of the most secretive,
> manipulative, arrogant and tightly controlled of
> any administration previously.
It may have been "widely argued," but that lends
your arguments no particular force that they've
been discussed from the Arctic Circle to McMurdo
Sound.
If it's widely argued that the Earth is flat,
secretly controlled by the Freemasons or Jews, or
stands at the center of the Universe (three
widely-argued propositions which have since been
discredited except in the minds of a few cranks),
so what?
Many things have been "widely argued" with no
presence of facts to support the arguments.
Without facts, no logical inferences can be drawn
and nothing proven. We're still waiting for the
critics to furnish facts which support their
overblown denunciations of my country, its
president, or our policies.
In addition to which, would you oblige me by
posting proof of your statement about my country's
administration or retracting it? (IOW, PPOR!)
> Whether any of these characteristics are
> anywhere on the scale of Totalitarianism and/or
> Fascism, or how far up, I honestly I don't know,
> and further to this - I don't care. I wasn't
> making any such comparisons.
And I did not address you personally, either in
words or intent - there was no apostrophe to you
at all in my remarks.
You chose to make several patronizing remarks to
me because I chose to refute someone else's
unproven and scurrilous assertions regarding my
country's Head of State, and you close with a
denial of statements I never made about or to you.
Are you feeling well, Sean?
Best wishes for a speedy recovery,
Sean
"Vance P. Frickey"
> Are you feeling well, Sean?
>
> Best wishes for a speedy recovery,
Thanks. I appreciate that.
I accept that Clinton lied. Why can't you accept that Bush did the same?
Have a nice day.
Pete LaGrange
> I accept that Clinton lied. Why can't you accept that Bush did the same?
Sean,
Maybe it's a matter of semantics. I've seen lots of claims that
President Bush lied but they all seem to backed by things that
Powell said or things that the President reported the British
intel service saying or similar events. I think that one solid,
verifiable, deliberate, untruth quoted from the lips of the
President, without a deceptive removal of context, would put
this matter to rest for many of us.
Respectfully,
--
Pete LaGrange
loyalty above all, save honor
Sean
news:MXU%e.53150$so3....@fe06.news.easynews.com...
You are kidding? No?
Google for "Bush Lies". Disregard blatant partisan falsehoods or kooky
stuff. Read with average intelligence and healthy scepticism.
Come back and tell me if you could not find one solid, verifiable,
deliberate, untruth quoted by said person. While browsing, also note the
deceptions directly attributable to the administration said person is the
leader of, and tell me if he really has no responsibility for what his
subordinates have said and done.
If you don't want to go to the effort - that's fine.
Pete LaGrange
> "Pete LaGrange" <oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MXU%e.53150$so3....@fe06.news.easynews.com...
>> Sean wrote:
>>
>>> I accept that Clinton lied. Why can't you accept that Bush did the same?
>>
>> Sean,
>>
>> Maybe it's a matter of semantics. I've seen lots of claims that
>> President Bush lied but they all seem to backed by things that
>> Powell said or things that the President reported the British
>> intel service saying or similar events. I think that one solid,
>> verifiable, deliberate, untruth quoted from the lips of the
>> President, without a deceptive removal of context, would put
>> this matter to rest for many of us.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>
> You are kidding? No?
No.
> Google for "Bush Lies". Disregard blatant partisan falsehoods or kooky
> stuff. Read with average intelligence and healthy scepticism.
I have.
> Come back and tell me if you could not find one solid, verifiable,
> deliberate, untruth quoted by said person.
I could not. I'd be happy to be enlightened, though.
> While browsing, also note the
> deceptions directly attributable to the administration said person is the
> leader of,
I note these above, although I still have trouble seeing these as
intentional deceptions. Again, I would be happy to be enlightened.
> and tell me if he really has no responsibility for what his
> subordinates have said and done.
He does, although, as noted above, I'm still having trouble seeing
these as intentional deceptions.
> If you don't want to go to the effort - that's fine.
I've been to the effort, many, many times. Perhaps I've missed
something? Would you care to give me a pointer?
Sean
> Would you care to give me a pointer?
I am still amazed by requests such as this. I really can't see any point in
providing pointers if someone is already blind to the truth, or gets
suckered by spin about semantics.
Ok, here is just one pointer:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
or
QUOTE: (CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to
invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White
House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News'
60 Minutes.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a
bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to
excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of
pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide
to do, is a really huge leap." :UNQUOTE
Perhaps some people think that brazenly misrepresenting intelligence data
and relying on dishonest arguments (including 9/11 and terrorists) to whip
up support for war with Iraq is not lying. Yeah, right. Re-reading some of
the statements made by the Bush administration pre-war makes me sick to the
stomach when I think of the unnecessary death and destruction it has caused.
Nohbody
wrote:
> "Pete LaGrange"
>
> > Would you care to give me a pointer?
>
> I am still amazed by requests such as this. I really can't see any point in
> providing pointers if someone is already blind to the truth, or gets
> suckered by spin about semantics.
I wish I could say I'm still amazed by responses such as this.
If someone makes a claim, it's the claimant's duty to provide supporting
evidence for the claim if it's questioned, not reply to the questioner
with "you need to prove my claim for me".
That's Debate 101.
--
Dan Poore
About the only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the
[political] spectrum is *which* civil right(s) they think we can do
without. -- Rowan Hawthorn, in alt.callahans (2/28/05)
Filksinger
> "Pete LaGrange"
>
>
>>Would you care to give me a pointer?
>
>
> I am still amazed by requests such as this. I really can't see any point in
> providing pointers if someone is already blind to the truth, or gets
> suckered by spin about semantics.
>
> Ok, here is just one pointer:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/556t9
> Perhaps some people think that brazenly misrepresenting intelligence data
> and relying on dishonest arguments (including 9/11 and terrorists) to whip
> up support for war with Iraq is not lying. Yeah, right. Re-reading some of
> the statements made by the Bush administration pre-war makes me sick to the
> stomach when I think of the unnecessary death and destruction it has caused.
I would love to see a clear case of Bush lying, as I have little respect
for the son of a Texan. Unfortunately, the article you chose gives no
such indication at all.
Pete asked for a clear case of Bush lying, rather than unsupported
contentions. There is not one example in this entire article of anything
that can remotely apply to that request, as it does not describe one
specific statement by Bush whatsoever, much less one that can be
construed as a lie.
Instead, there is an insider's statement as to a possible motive for
such lying, but not one accusation from said insider that a single lie
was told. Then, a bunch of people with political axes to grind declare
that this proves that Bush lied. However, they give not one piece of
supporting evidence, or even a clear example of something that might
have been a lie, but instead couch everything they say in generalities
which, by their vague nature, cannot be disproved.
All we have here is that an insider says that group of people who
believe X should be done have a meeting, and at the meeting they discuss
how to carry out X, and that they made plans for actually carrying out
X. A meeting that would take place regardless of how right or wrong they
turned out to be, I might point out, and no matter how righteous their
motives. And from this you conclude that said people had to have lied
about X to get it done? Sorry, that isn't proof. All it really shows is
that they were predisposed to readily accept evidence that X needed to
be done. This is as much evidence that they might have believed false
information as it is evidence that they might have created such information.
I really would like solid proof that Bush lied, but, frankly, as
evidence, this sucks.
--
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined
Pete LaGrange
I'm sorry Sean, I don't see even a single statement by the President in
the article quoted. Are you sure you've provided the URL that you intended
to?
Sean
Pete LaGrange wrote:
> I'm sorry Sean, I don't see even a single statement by the President in
> the article quoted. Are you sure you've provided the URL that you intended
> to?
I expected you to reference the information with the previously
suggested action of doing a Google search that *did* show many, many
actual quotes by the President. I'm disappointed you pretend to be
confused by this. In particular you try to represent my actions as
mistaken.
You have probably read the report on the Bush Administration's Public
Statements on Iraq as well. Perhaps these quotes might ring a bell with
you.
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
or
Thanks for your efforts to try to understand.
-- Sean
Pete LaGrange
2005 16:51:55 -0700 said:
>
> Pete LaGrange wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry Sean, I don't see even a single statement by the President in
>> the article quoted. Are you sure you've provided the URL that you
>> intended to?
>
> I expected you to reference the information with the previously suggested
> action of doing a Google search that *did* show many, many actual quotes
> by the President. I'm disappointed you pretend to be confused by this. In
> particular you try to represent my actions as mistaken.
I did that search, if there are "many, many actual quotes" why do not
provide one? I'm not pretending anything and this is the second post in
which you've attempted to insult me. I represent your actions as nothing
other than non-responsive. I asked that question to allow you to provide
an actual answer to the query I originally posed. I'll ask again. You've
claimed that President Bush lied, can you back that up or are you just
blowing smoke? Show me a real lie, not something British Intelligence got
wrong, not something Cheney or Rice said and certainly not a report
prepared by his opposition that can barely make the case that he was
"misleading". Sean, I've read your posts for a long and we both know that
we disagree on many things but on this one, I think you're letting your
political emotions lead your reason around by the nose. Prove me wrong,
and try to not be insulting in the process. Show me a lie that everyone
can agree is a lie, show me something that doesn't require rabid
bush-hatred as a prerequisite. Show me something undeniable and not just
by someone who holds your views but something undeniable by someone of any
stripe. A fact, in other words.
I leave the below so that anyone interested can see who wrote it and who
it was written for and judge it for themselves.
> You have probably read the report on the Bush Administration's Public
> Statements on Iraq as well. Perhaps these quotes might ring a bell with
> you.
>
> http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
>
> Thanks for your efforts to try to understand.
>
--
David M. Silver
Pete LaGrange <oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I leave the below so that anyone interested can see who wrote it and who
> it was written for and judge it for themselves.
>
> > You have probably read the report on the Bush Administration's Public
> > Statements on Iraq as well. Perhaps these quotes might ring a bell with
> > you.
> >
> > http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_
> > record_rep.pdf
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
It's no secret who wrote it, Pete, or at whose request it was prepared.
Are you suggesting that my particular Congressman, whom I have voted to
elect and reelect for many terms (despite my personal distaste for some
positions he has taken and personal conclusion that he's an a--hole, a
status he shares with many politicians), would permit his staff to
manufacture and publish a wholly false document as part of the official
record of a committee on which he is the senior minority member, has
been chairman, and one day perhaps will be again? Or are you simply
avoiding recognizing that there might be a pertinent fact or two
reported in it? Repeated willful and material misrepresentations about
cause for war are just as much lies as telling a lawyer in a civil
deposition that a certain woman's blowjob didn't constitute "having
sex."
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Sean
Not to mention the hundreds of inconvenient "facts" contained therein.
You asked for "facts", and you get "facts". Now you complain that the
facts aren't good enough for you, the only reason stated that you don't
like who wrote it. Well, don't worry so much about who "wrote" it, but
rather concentrate on who "said" it.
My only political emotion is to protest unfairness, whoever may be
responsible. You seem to think my postings are partisan, but I don't
care what badge someone wears if they are responsible for the deaths of
tens of thousands of innocent people.
BTW, if someone misled me, and it was proven that he misled me, and
people died because of it, I would be a very cranky SOB. I have no
problem in equating being misled with being lied to, like so many
others do. Semantics?
Also, you accuse me of attempting to insult you when I have no desire
to do that at all. I am usually suspicious when attacked with those
sorts of statements in a debate and can only wonder why you have done
so. Semantics perhaps?
> > You have probably read the report on the Bush Administration's Public
> > Statements on Iraq as well. Perhaps these quotes might ring a bell with
> > you.
> >
> > http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts to try to understand.
Providing "facts" is not difficult, but overcoming resistance to the
evidence is near impossible for some. I can only assume that some have
a higher tolerance for the truth than others.
-- Sean
Filksinger
While it seems incontestable that Rice lied, they neglected to mention
who told the other two lies they refer to, so I do not know if those are
attributable to Bush or not, nor can I review their accuracy.
I also don't know how self-deceived she herself was. I've seen cases of
what appeared to be obvious blatant lying in which I know for a fact
that the person speaking was not, in fact, lying. And, while I consider
her lies to be serious mars on Bush's credibility and honor, I do not
consider lies by people other than Bush to be the same as Bush lying,
unless they are making a statement for the White House. To the best of
my understanding, she was not speaking for the White House, but for herself.
As for the rest, the report said it outright, in its comment on
objective vs. subjective: we don't know if they believed what they were
saying. Were they guilty of a deliberate conspiracy of mass deception
and/or distortion, or were they victims of groupthink?
In other words, are they dishonest or fools willing to believe whatever
supports their preconceptions? I'd love to be able to say the first, but
I have yet to see proof that it isn't the second, except in the case of
Condoleeza Rice.
Pete LaGrange
I agree with everything you say (here's where my mama slaps the back of
my head for disregarding everything she taught me about arguing with an
attorney, IOW, don't), I just don't believe it's been shown to be willful.
Every time I ask for a cite (and it's been months, if not years) I get
refered back to statements by Powell or Rice or Cheney or the British
Intel Report. These may all be characterized as mistaken, wrong or even
careless, they just don't get me to the President lying. Maybe I am
blinkered and hoodwinked, but I don't think so. I'd be happy to see a
single statement by the President that I could see, for certain, as a
lie. Every time I ask for that I get accused of being a stooge or a
dolt. I just had a 6 hour IQ test and they pretty much ruled out the
latter. If it's the former I'm doing it to myself, as well. I'm not sure
that's possible. I'd love to see someone lay out those pertinent facts in
clear bullet points so I could understand.
Pete LaGrange
a) I doubt you can cite "hundreds of inconveninent facts" pertaining to
the discussion at hand from that report.
b) My issue with that report and who wrote it was to point up the fact
that even that partisan report could only charactarize the statements as
"misleading", IOW not lies.
c) Said what? I ask over and over and get no response. Please list the
things the President said that you refer to when you say he lied. I'd
like to know what they are.
> My only political emotion is to protest unfairness, whoever may be
> responsible. You seem to think my postings are partisan, but I don't
> care what badge someone wears if they are responsible for the deaths of
> tens of thousands of innocent people.
>
> BTW, if someone misled me, and it was proven that he misled me, and
> people died because of it, I would be a very cranky SOB. I have no
> problem in equating being misled with being lied to, like so many
> others do. Semantics?
I /am/ cranky. I doesn't cause to me to refer to a pig as a fish,
though. Yes, semantics, accuracy, precision.
> Also, you accuse me of attempting to insult you when I have no desire
> to do that at all. I am usually suspicious when attacked with those
> sorts of statements in a debate and can only wonder why you have done
> so. Semantics perhaps?
I have done so because you posted the words
<begin quote>
I am still amazed by requests such as this. I really can't see any point
in providing pointers if someone is already blind to the truth, or gets
suckered by spin about semantics.
and
I'm disappointed you pretend to be confused by this.
<end quote>
I'm a blind sucker who lies about what confuses me?
You did not mean this to be insulting?
>> > You have probably read the report on the Bush Administration's Public
>> > Statements on Iraq as well. Perhaps these quotes might ring a bell with
>> > you.
>> >
>> > http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
>> >
>> > Thanks for your efforts to try to understand.
>
> Providing "facts" is not difficult, but overcoming resistance to the
> evidence is near impossible for some. I can only assume that some have
> a higher tolerance for the truth than others.
>
More insults. Only you can see the truth?
I'm still waiting for the evidence.
Vance P. Frickey
Because I am not in receipt of proof that President Bush
lied. He may have repeated misstatements by his national
security and intel staff, but I believe that those
statements were honest error, not lies.
And Bush's statements regarding WMD are backed by three
years of identical assessments by Bill Clinton and his
appointees.
When Clinton's former national security adviser went to the
National Archives and destroyed records relating to Iraqi
WMD and tried to smuggle others out in his underwear, now,
THAT was indicative of a lie regarding WMD which Berger was
trying to cover up. From the Clinton administration, which
is why we haven't seen any press coverage of the incident.
A Federal judge recently increased the penalties Berger was
assessed for his acts because of their severity.
Now, Clinton's record of lies told in office in truly epic.
But that implies no symmetry along party lines - that
assertion is audaciously daft.
--
Sean
Pete LaGrange wrote:
<snip>
> I'm still waiting for the evidence.
Believe it or not, I think we are making progress Pete.
For accuracy, I see a central issue that might be helpful to clarify.
What do you understand to be the difference between the terms "lied"
and "misled" in the context of our discussion?
Do you not see any situation where these terms can be interchangeable,
or on the same level of meaning, or have essentially the same effect?
Precisely how exactly is misleading *any* different from lying?
How many documented and quoted examples in the cited document refer to
the Bush Administration (including Bush) "misleading" the public. Don't
worry about this one Pete - "Hundreds" is the answer.
Do you doubt that deliberate intent to lie or mislead has been proven?
If you accept that the Bush Administration did indeed mislead the
public but are unsure whether it was deliberate, what evidence (if any)
would satisfy you that it was?
I apologise for so many questions, but it seems to me the only way to
find common understanding and move forward.
Respecfully,
-- Sean
David M. Silver
Pete LaGrange <oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I just don't believe it's been shown to be willful.
Pete: "willful" is a question of fact, involving discerning motive to
deceive. For some finders of fact--which we all are whenever we, after
time, form final conclusions about something important that isn't simply
admitted--the question of when circumstantial evidence proves a willful
motive is always a question of "how much do you need to be convinced"?
Is it raining outside just because someone came into the room and said
so? Maybe not. People lie. Add wearing wet clothing? Maybe not. He could
have walked through a shower in the building or used a hose to wet
himself down. How 'bout adding thunder and lightning? Add the certain
changes in the air, humidity, pressure, freshness, the aching of my old
scars that experience teaches me that imminent or actual rain brings?
Darkness from cloud cover overhead? At a certain point how much becomes
enough for most people.
The argument made in that report inferring a motive to willfully lie
from misleading statements and acts themselves, a pattern, a course of
conduct from repeated instances, is one we all have to evaluate. Lying
can be done by omission of material facts, or "material omissions," just
as easily as by direct falsehood (material misstatements). Heinlein had
one of his characters tell us exactly how to lie by material omission.
That's why you are sworn to tell the whole truth. That report you've
probably read by now if not before omits from any consideration those
arguable mistakes that the administration could have honestly made that
you've noted could be urged as misleading. It tells you what they were,
when they were made, under what circumstances of actual knowledge, and
by whom. It argues the remaining 237 misleading statements made by
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary
Powell and National Security Advisor Rice, in 125 separate appearances,
consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53
interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies, all
statements where it can be proven that the speakers had the knowledge
they omitted to state or controverted the actual truth they knew
directly, are sufficient to infer a willful motive to deceive.
Some differ on the quantum necessary to prove a circumstantial case. You
cannot have a smoking gun, absent a confession highly unlikely to be
made, in this sort of case. Sometimes you have to conclude "if the glove
doesn't fit, you must acquit." That happened 10 years ago, notoriously.
It may surprise you, but I think the jury made the right decision there
on the case that was presented to them. The prosecution screwed up so
badly many professionals concluded they were incompetent. You're free to
conclude that about the Special Investigations Division of the Committee
on Government Reform, Minority Office; and by the experts it consulted,
if you think they haven't made a sufficient case--some might wish you'd
tell why you so conclude with more specificity; but I really don't
care--I recognize there are political factors here that impinge on your
decision just as there are the same factors that impinge on the
Honorable Henry Waxman. If you must conclude the glove doesn't fit here,
you're free to do so, whether or not you actually believe 237 proven
intentionally misleading statements, including ten bald-faced lies,
aren't sufficient circumstantial evidence. It's a free country as they
say, yet.
If Sean wishes to conclude it does, he's free in this kind of case to do
so as well. Those are facts, nevertheless, that Congressman Waxman's
search and investigations division made. Perhaps not smoking
sufficiently for you--although the eight bald-faced lies may produce the
tinge of odor that smells like smoke--but circumstantial facts the
existence of which cannot reasonably be refutted, tending to show
willful deception.
Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me 237 times, ... well, you know
how it ends, Pete. Some people feel that way about this administration.
It's not because they "hate" Bush. It's because of facts which may not
be sufficient to convince everyone.
Filksinger
> Not to mention the hundreds of inconvenient "facts" contained therein.
> You asked for "facts", and you get "facts". Now you complain that the
> facts aren't good enough for you, the only reason stated that you don't
> like who wrote it. Well, don't worry so much about who "wrote" it, but
> rather concentrate on who "said" it.
Said what? Not one word in that report said that Bush personally uttered
a single untruth. It did say that he was "misleading", while
sidestepping the issue of whether or not this was deliberate. Of course,
the report itself was also "misleading", in that it left out
inconvenient details and deliberately put a particular spin on what it
did say.
However, you apparently agree with that pre-ordained conclusion. You
appear to agree with its pre-ordained conclusion so much that you fail
to recognize that it doesn't, in fact, contain the facts that you say it
does. You were asked for one thing, and one thing only, which this
report does not supply: one single clearly deliberately false statement
by President Bush himself.
> My only political emotion is to protest unfairness, whoever may be
> responsible. You seem to think my postings are partisan, but I don't
> care what badge someone wears if they are responsible for the deaths of
> tens of thousands of innocent people.
I don't see partisanship at all. However, I do suspect a bias against
Bush himself.
> BTW, if someone misled me, and it was proven that he misled me, and
> people died because of it, I would be a very cranky SOB. I have no
> problem in equating being misled with being lied to, like so many
> others do. Semantics?
Is it semantics when you declare two things not equal to each other to
be equal to each other? I can't say; I don't know what you mean by
semantics. I do consider it false, however.
I flatly agree with the people who "have a problem with equating being
mislead with being lied to". Misleading statements and lying are not the
same, especially since lying requires intent, while making a misleading
statement does not, at least not as the term has been used here. It is,
however, an old semantic trick to use a word like "misleading" to mean,
"doesn't clearly present all sides of an issue" and "presents the biased
view of a person or group as fact" at one point, then use it as
equivalent to "lying" at another.
So far, you have failed to prove intent in Bush's case. The best you can
prove is that he didn't present the issues in an objective fashion. You
have not shown that Bush didn't believe everything that he said; the
report, indeed, said as much.
> Also, you accuse me of attempting to insult you when I have no desire
> to do that at all. I am usually suspicious when attacked with those
> sorts of statements in a debate and can only wonder why you have done
> so. Semantics perhaps?
Well, I certainly agree you were insulting him, and, for that matter,
anyone who agreed with him. You stated that he was either blind or a
sucker, that he was incapable of understanding the truth when it was
clearly presented to him, and that he was "pretending" (i.e.lying) when
he didn't buy your "facts". The fact that you did this in a disingenuous
way intended to allow you to later claim that you weren't being
deliberately insulting does not help the matter at all.
<snip>
> Providing "facts" is not difficult, but overcoming resistance to the
> evidence is near impossible for some. I can only assume that some have
> a higher tolerance for the truth than others.
And again, you insult the people with whom you disagree, while
pretending that you aren't.
David M. Silver
Filksinger <use...@filksinger.mailshell.com> wrote:
> I flatly agree with the people who "have a problem with equating being
> mislead with being lied to". Misleading statements and lying are not the
> same, especially since lying requires intent, while making a misleading
> statement does not, at least not as the term has been used here. It is,
> however, an old semantic trick to use a word like "misleading" to mean,
> "doesn't clearly present all sides of an issue" and "presents the biased
> view of a person or group as fact" at one point, then use it as
> equivalent to "lying" at another.
I disagree, David, if by "used here" you refer to the Waxman report.
The Waxman report eliminates honest mistake. Let's simply use fraud or
deceit instead of lying.
Definition of Fraud
All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are
resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false
suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises,
tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is
cheated.
Source: Blackąs Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West
Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.
Definition of Deceit
n.
Deliberate and misleading concealment, false declaration, or artifice
deception (theft by deceit); also The tort of committing or carrying out
deceit (an action for deceit) see also fraud misrepresentation
If you think the President has a duty, when he calls for war, to not
deceive the public, then a knowing omission of material fact which he
has reason to believe the public (and Congressmen and Senators who he
intends to be those who will vote on a resolution supporting him under
the War Powers Act) will rely upon is fraud and deceit upon the public
and upon Congress.
And under respondeat superior the President is responsible everytime
Cheney, or Powell, or Rumfeld, or Rice speak.
Filksinger
> In article <XgK0f.7105$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Filksinger <use...@filksinger.mailshell.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I flatly agree with the people who "have a problem with equating being
>>mislead with being lied to". Misleading statements and lying are not the
>>same, especially since lying requires intent, while making a misleading
>>statement does not, at least not as the term has been used here. It is,
>>however, an old semantic trick to use a word like "misleading" to mean,
>>"doesn't clearly present all sides of an issue" and "presents the biased
>>view of a person or group as fact" at one point, then use it as
>>equivalent to "lying" at another.
>
>
> I disagree, David, if by "used here" you refer to the Waxman report.
>
> The Waxman report eliminates honest mistake. Let's simply use fraud or
> deceit instead of lying.
> If you think the President has a duty, when he calls for war, to not
> deceive the public, then a knowing omission of material fact which he
> has reason to believe the public (and Congressmen and Senators who he
> intends to be those who will vote on a resolution supporting him under
> the War Powers Act) will rely upon is fraud and deceit upon the public
> and upon Congress.
If Bush truly believed the things he was saying, but didn't make it
clear that not everyone agreed, would this be deceit or fraud?
If so, then Bush would be guilty of deceit. So would most people I have
seen take up one side of any issue as their own. People routinely
present what they believe to be true, while playing down and/or
dismissing the claims of people who disagree with them, especially when
they believe the stakes are high.
Rather than debate as to whether or not he overdid his failure to
mention disagreements with his positions, I simply ask for a single
point where, like Rice, we can show that he was firmly informed of X,
yet claimed publicly not-X.
I do not disagree that Bush was all kinds of incompetent, deceived,
played for a fool by people like Chalabi, and overzealous in his pursuit
of a war in Iraq, nor that he presented biased reports on the
information he was given by the intelligence community. However, the
report in question was also biased and played deceptive word games,
though to a much lesser degree.
I do not deny that Bush is a lousy president who has severe credibility
problems and should never have been allowed in the Oval Office. However
he isn't going to be impeached for anything he has done, and debating
over the fine points is more than I want to do with no real result.
Rather than debate how much bias in ones reporting is too much and
constitutes deception, or debate the impossible to determine degree to
which Bush believed what he was saying, I simply ask for one flat out
lie I can lay directly in his lap.
> And under respondeat superior the President is responsible everytime
> Cheney, or Powell, or Rumfeld, or Rice speak.
He is responsible for what she said, quite right. I didn't say he
wasn't. I don't deny his culpability in getting us into an ill-advised
war, though I do not know how much was deliberate and how much
self-delusion. I just want a simple statement that nobody can deny is a
flat out lie, to use in future conversations, so that I can call Bush a
liar without debate.
Pete LaGrange
>
> Pete LaGrange wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I'm still waiting for the evidence.
>
> Believe it or not, I think we are making progress Pete.
>
> For accuracy, I see a central issue that might be helpful to clarify.
>
> What do you understand to be the difference between the terms "lied"
> and "misled" in the context of our discussion?
To my mind, a lie is intentional. A lie always misleads. The reverse can
not be said. I can mislead you without lying. For instance, if I give
you the wrong directions based on a faulty belief as to where your
requested destination actually is, I will have misled you in an honest
effort to help you. OTOH, if I purposely send you to the wrong
destination, I have lied to you.
> Do you not see any situation where these terms can be interchangeable,
> or on the same level of meaning, or have essentially the same effect?
Only to the extent noted above.
> Precisely how exactly is misleading *any* different from lying?
The motivation behind the act, the will to decieve, is the determining
factor, as I see it.
> How many documented and quoted examples in the cited document refer to
> the Bush Administration (including Bush) "misleading" the public. Don't
> worry about this one Pete - "Hundreds" is the answer.
This I do not doubt, although the point I was addressing was one
concerned with the /President's/ truthfulness.
> Do you doubt that deliberate intent to lie or mislead has been proven?
I do, within the confines of the previous response. As to others, I have
not examined the facts closely enough to make a judgement, at this time.
> If you accept that the Bush Administration did indeed mislead the
> public but are unsure whether it was deliberate, what evidence (if any)
> would satisfy you that it was?
First, let me be clear, I am not discussing anything that the
"administration" did or did not do.
In order to accept your original statement that "Bush lied" I would need
to be shown the President uttered some material statement that he knew
to be untrue. There must be many ways to achieve this. One, for example
would be a memo or some such informing the President that the British did
/not/ have intelligence relating to the purchase of nuclear materials
before he made that statement.
Frankly, I would be glad to be shown a clear instance as that would put
me in agreement on this issue with many people I respect, both online
and off.
And even more frankly, I am on the record as not opposing deception as a
tool in this conflict. I consider deception of the American people a
flaw, but not necessarily fatal flaw.
> I apologise for so many questions, but it seems to me the only way to
> find common understanding and move forward.
No need, I am glad to be given the opportunity to clarify my position.
As...@tds.net
couple of the participants will understand why. Anyone who does not
have sufficient background, ignore this post. Going back through
Google Groups and finding out might actually be easier than trying to
explain.
Pete LaGrange
Agreed, with a few comments.
1) I wish I could have refered Sean to something like this after his
original comment.
"I accept that Clinton lied. Why can't you accept that Bush did the
same?"
It might have saved considerable effort.
2) I never believed OJ would be convicted. 2003 yards, Mr Airport Rental
and the movie career had to many folks as comfortable with him as their
own families. Faster than a hundred linebackers, able to leap tall
seating arrangements in a single bound and more powerful than Leslie
Nielsen is what I used to say.
3) If there is a list of those ten lies, I'd like to see them, seperated
out from any reports or other chaff so I can be sure of that which I'm
speaking.
4) Of course Sean has the right to believe as he sees fit. I was trying
to answer his query as to why someone would not believe as he does.
Pete LaGrange
Another smug, backhanded accusation of dishonesty...from the one proven
and admitted liar on this group.
Sad, really.
Dr. Rufo
As...@tds.net wrote:
> I am amused by this discussion.
< snip >
I have also been following this discussion in despite of my
personal opinion of the Black Art of politics and the practitioners
thereof.
That said, I would like to compliment the folks who have been
involved in this give and take. It's clear that a difference of
opinion exists here but for the greater part of the exchange, the
postings have stayed on the topic being discussed and there's been a
clear attempt at conversation rather than abuse.
I congratulate all involved and, if you'll have it, the next round
is my shout.
Rufe
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As...@tds.net wrote:
>> I am amused by this discussion. Anyone who has followed this NG and a
>> couple of the participants will understand why. Anyone who does not
>> have sufficient background, ignore this post. Going back through
>> Google Groups and finding out might actually be easier than trying to
>> explain.
>
>Another smug, backhanded accusation of dishonesty...from the one proven
>and admitted liar on this group.
Smug and backhanded...perhaps. I won't deny it.
Accusation of dishonesty...I find it of interest that you apparently
know exactly who and what I am referring to.
Admitted...yeah, I admit that under extreme circumstances I can be
goaded into going back on my word. At least I don't try to claim
people hold views which, in fact, they not only do not hold but
actively oppose.
But "the one proven...liar" on this group?!?!? Right. If you say so.
Even if you were just a gullible moron, Silver's lies still stand and
are available to anyone who wants to check Google Groups.
Pete LaGrange
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:06:38 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As...@tds.net wrote:
>>> I am amused by this discussion. Anyone who has followed this NG and a
>>> couple of the participants will understand why. Anyone who does not
>>> have sufficient background, ignore this post. Going back through
>>> Google Groups and finding out might actually be easier than trying to
>>> explain.
>>
>>Another smug, backhanded accusation of dishonesty...from the one proven
>>and admitted liar on this group.
>
> Smug and backhanded...perhaps. I won't deny it.
>
> Accusation of dishonesty...I find it of interest that you apparently
> know exactly who and what I am referring to.
Wasn't difficult, it's been your main obsession for, what? two years,
now?
> Admitted...yeah, I admit that under extreme circumstances I can be
> goaded into going back on my word. At least I don't try to claim
> people hold views which, in fact, they not only do not hold but
> actively oppose.
>
> But "the one proven...liar" on this group?!?!? Right. If you say so.
> Even if you were just a gullible moron, Silver's lies still stand and
> are available to anyone who wants to check Google Groups.
Yet, amazingly, everyone who has taken the trouble to go back and read
the thread has been, shall we say, less than supportive of your claims.
Shocking!
Listen, you're a bright guy, you have a lot of ideas and you stimulate
some interesting conversations around here. If you could bring yourself
to stop interjecting animosity at every available opportunity I think
you'd find this group a much nicer place, I know I would.
Did you really expect your words to be accepted as gospel? You put out
some ideas, folks made what I (and seemingly everyone else who's taken
the trouble to comment) consider legitimate criticisms. Why not leave it
at that and move on?
Anyway, pearls before swine and all that...
Brian Maranta
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> That said, I would like to compliment the folks who have been
> involved in this give and take. It's clear that a difference of
> opinion exists here but for the greater part of the exchange, the
> postings have stayed on the topic being discussed and there's been a
> clear attempt at conversation rather than abuse.
> I congratulate all involved and, if you'll have it, the next round
> is my shout.
Hear, hear, Herr Doktor! I am also impressed by the participants' abilty
to have a good, solid conversation, rather than de-volving into a flame
war.
Cheers!
--
Brian Maranta - brian(at)magsi(dot)com - AIM: bjmaranta
Canadian Army, Signal Corps, RMC Class of '89
Mac Evangelist - Dispelling the Mac Myths.
You live and learn... or you don't live long - Heinlein
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> But "the one proven...liar" on this group?!?!? Right. If you say so.
>> Even if you were just a gullible moron, Silver's lies still stand and
>> are available to anyone who wants to check Google Groups.
>
>Yet, amazingly, everyone who has taken the trouble to go back and read
>the thread has been, shall we say, less than supportive of your claims.
I know. Gullible morons. There does seem to be only a few though.
>
>Shocking!
What is shocking is that NO ONE has EVER quoted any post of mine in
support of the claim that I want some sort of authoritarian Lunar
colony.
Let me guess: you think that is unnecessary. When it comes to facts,
just take a vote and believe whatever the majority believes. Right?
The majority of Americans reject evolution and believe in Creationism
or Intelligent Design (if there is a difference). So, we ignore all
the facts and dump evolution, right?
>
>Listen, you're a bright guy, you have a lot of ideas and you stimulate
>some interesting conversations around here. If you could bring yourself
>to stop interjecting animosity at every available opportunity I think
>you'd find this group a much nicer place, I know I would.
I'll make you a deal: if people don't make up lies about what I post
and believe, then maybe I won't interject animosity so often.
If you don't like that deal, try this one: if people lie about what I
post and believe, then I will interject animosity whenever I bloody
well feel like it.
If gullible morons indicate that they have been suckered in by the
lies, then the animosity will be interjected more often.
>
>Did you really expect your words to be accepted as gospel?
When it comes to what I believe, YOU BLOODY WELL BETTER BELIEVE I
EXPECT MY WORDS TO BE ACCEPTED AS GOSPEL. Anyone who does not do so
will be considered a liar and/or a gullible moron.
Who else EXCEPT the person in question is qualified to know what they
believe on any given subject?
I would NEVER, EVER accept anyone's word except yours on what you
believe. This applies to every single last person in the entire
world. Why do you think otherwise?
You put out
>some ideas, folks made what I (and seemingly everyone else who's taken
>the trouble to comment) consider legitimate criticisms.
Lying about what someone has posted is NEVER, EVER a "valid
criticism." YMMV I guess, but I cannot imagine my opinion on this
ever changing.
Why not leave it
>at that and move on?
I would prefer that as few people as possible believe the lies, and as
many as possible know what my actual views are.
I do consider myself in good company. 21 years after Heinlein
published Starship Troopers, he was still pointing out how it did not
not advocate fascism in any way, and that those who thought it did so
had trouble understanding simple indicative sentences. Do you think
he should have just left it and moved on, instead of including that
section in Expanded Universe?
Sean
Pete LaGrange wrote:
> Sean wrote:
> >
> > Pete LaGrange wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> I'm still waiting for the evidence.
> >
> > Believe it or not, I think we are making progress Pete.
> >
> > For accuracy, I see a central issue that might be helpful to clarify.
> >
> > What do you understand to be the difference between the terms "lied"
> > and "misled" in the context of our discussion?
>
> To my mind, a lie is intentional. A lie always misleads. The reverse can
> not be said. I can mislead you without lying. For instance, if I give
> you the wrong directions based on a faulty belief as to where your
> requested destination actually is, I will have misled you in an honest
> effort to help you. OTOH, if I purposely send you to the wrong
> destination, I have lied to you.
To my mind the two terms are so similar that in many and most
circumstances they are interchangeable. I really don't see how intent
can be part of the respective definitions. Someone can deliberately
lie, someone can deliberately mislead. Someone can unintentionally lie,
someone can unintentionally mislead. Intent is, to me anyway, something
separate.
Where previously I have referred to statements that Bush lied, please
feel free to interchange this with "deliberately lied" or "deliberately
misled", as opposed to "unintentionally lied" or "unintentionally
misled".
> > Do you not see any situation where these terms can be interchangeable,
> > or on the same level of meaning, or have essentially the same effect?
>
> Only to the extent noted above.
Note also my comment above. I equate the terms as essentially the same.
"Intent" is something assessed independently.
>
> > Precisely how exactly is misleading *any* different from lying?
>
> The motivation behind the act, the will to decieve, is the determining
> factor, as I see it.
Someone cannot intentionally mislead? News to me.
> > How many documented and quoted examples in the cited document refer to
> > the Bush Administration (including Bush) "misleading" the public. Don't
> > worry about this one Pete - "Hundreds" is the answer.
>
> This I do not doubt, although the point I was addressing was one
> concerned with the /President's/ truthfulness.
>
> > Do you doubt that deliberate intent to lie or mislead has been proven?
>
> I do, within the confines of the previous response. As to others, I have
> not examined the facts closely enough to make a judgement, at this time.
Clinton was judged to have lied (or deliberately misled) through the
examination of evidence and the testimony of others. I would only ask
that Bush be similarly judged.
Pete, you have the same access to the evidence and testimony of others
that I do. Many individuals of high standing have come out and supplied
evidence and testimony in direct contradiction to Bush and his
administration. I have formed the view from this evidence that it is
impossible that Bush and his administration could have unintentionally
made misleading statements to the public i.e. he lied.
> > If you accept that the Bush Administration did indeed mislead the
> > public but are unsure whether it was deliberate, what evidence (if any)
> > would satisfy you that it was?
>
> First, let me be clear, I am not discussing anything that the
> "administration" did or did not do.
>
> In order to accept your original statement that "Bush lied" I would need
> to be shown the President uttered some material statement that he knew
> to be untrue. There must be many ways to achieve this. One, for example
> would be a memo or some such informing the President that the British did
> /not/ have intelligence relating to the purchase of nuclear materials
> before he made that statement.
>
> Frankly, I would be glad to be shown a clear instance as that would put
> me in agreement on this issue with many people I respect, both online
> and off.
>
> And even more frankly, I am on the record as not opposing deception as a
> tool in this conflict. I consider deception of the American people a
> flaw, but not necessarily fatal flaw.
Not wanting to expand the discussion, but in the interests of
completeness, I would also note that I have only *pointed* to one area
in regard to this question, whereas there are also many other areas I
could point to. But enough for now.
> > I apologise for so many questions, but it seems to me the only way to
> > find common understanding and move forward.
>
> No need, I am glad to be given the opportunity to clarify my position.
And me as well.
-- Sean
As...@tds.net
>To my mind the two terms are so similar that in many and most
>circumstances they are interchangeable. I really don't see how intent
>can be part of the respective definitions. Someone can deliberately
>lie, someone can deliberately mislead. Someone can unintentionally lie,
>someone can unintentionally mislead. Intent is, to me anyway, something
>separate.
This may be a difference between America and Australia. Dictionaries
do agree with you: any false statement can be called a lie. In the
U. S. though, there is almost always a connotation that a lie is
intentional. A false statement made unintentionally through a mistake
or lack of information or some such is usually referred to by some
other term than lie.
Sean
Actually, I don't see any great difference in understanding. Probably
more for legal reasons are people in the US more twitchy about calling
someone a lier, but the slightly different shade of meaning you report
is well understood here as well.
Here it is a long established convention (if not a law) from the
Westminster system of government that a Minister or Prime Minister must
resign if it is proven that he or she deliberately misled the
parliament i.e. deliberatley misled = lied. This is probably an
explanation for why many MP's in any Westminster-type parliament are
usually adept and quick on their feet during debates; the proceedings
can sometimes be quite robust and enthusiastic and those with quicker
wits will often prevail (as long as they choose their words carefully).
-- Sean
Pete LaGrange
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:07:29 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> But "the one proven...liar" on this group?!?!? Right. If you say so.
>>> Even if you were just a gullible moron, Silver's lies still stand and
>>> are available to anyone who wants to check Google Groups.
>>
>>Yet, amazingly, everyone who has taken the trouble to go back and read
>>the thread has been, shall we say, less than supportive of your claims.
>
> I know. Gullible morons. There does seem to be only a few though.
Thamk you. I'm quite proud to be grouped into such company.
>>Shocking!
>
> What is shocking is that NO ONE has EVER quoted any post of mine in
> support of the claim that I want some sort of authoritarian Lunar
> colony.
Oh stop! YOU posted it. Forbidden equipment and "allowable" pregnancy,
indeed.
> Let me guess: you think that is unnecessary. When it comes to facts,
> just take a vote and believe whatever the majority believes. Right?
> The majority of Americans reject evolution and believe in Creationism
> or Intelligent Design (if there is a difference). So, we ignore all
> the facts and dump evolution, right?
>
>>
>>Listen, you're a bright guy, you have a lot of ideas and you stimulate
>>some interesting conversations around here. If you could bring yourself
>>to stop interjecting animosity at every available opportunity I think
>>you'd find this group a much nicer place, I know I would.
>
> I'll make you a deal: if people don't make up lies about what I post
> and believe, then maybe I won't interject animosity so often.
>
> If you don't like that deal, try this one: if people lie about what I
> post and believe, then I will interject animosity whenever I bloody
> well feel like it.
>
> If gullible morons indicate that they have been suckered in by the
> lies, then the animosity will be interjected more often.
I made a deal with you once, didn't work out.
>>Did you really expect your words to be accepted as gospel?
>
> When it comes to what I believe, YOU BLOODY WELL BETTER BELIEVE I
> EXPECT MY WORDS TO BE ACCEPTED AS GOSPEL. Anyone who does not do so
> will be considered a liar and/or a gullible moron.
>
> Who else EXCEPT the person in question is qualified to know what they
> believe on any given subject?
>
> I would NEVER, EVER accept anyone's word except yours on what you
> believe. This applies to every single last person in the entire
> world. Why do you think otherwise?
Who the hell's talking about what you believed? I'm talking about what
you said. The fact that they didn't match up is your problem, not anyone
else's.
> You put out
>>some ideas, folks made what I (and seemingly everyone else who's taken
>>the trouble to comment) consider legitimate criticisms.
>
> Lying about what someone has posted is NEVER, EVER a "valid
> criticism." YMMV I guess, but I cannot imagine my opinion on this
> ever changing.
>
> Why not leave it
>>at that and move on?
>
> I would prefer that as few people as possible believe the lies, and as
> many as possible know what my actual views are.
>
> I do consider myself in good company. 21 years after Heinlein
> published Starship Troopers, he was still pointing out how it did not
> not advocate fascism in any way, and that those who thought it did so
> had trouble understanding simple indicative sentences. Do you think
> he should have just left it and moved on, instead of including that
> section in Expanded Universe?
Don't flatter yourself.
Pete LaGrange
>
> Pete LaGrange wrote:
>> Sean wrote:
>> >
>> > Pete LaGrange wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> I'm still waiting for the evidence.
>> >
>> > Believe it or not, I think we are making progress Pete.
>> >
>> > For accuracy, I see a central issue that might be helpful to clarify.
>> >
>> > What do you understand to be the difference between the terms "lied"
>> > and "misled" in the context of our discussion?
>>
>> To my mind, a lie is intentional. A lie always misleads. The reverse can
>> not be said. I can mislead you without lying. For instance, if I give
>> you the wrong directions based on a faulty belief as to where your
>> requested destination actually is, I will have misled you in an honest
>> effort to help you. OTOH, if I purposely send you to the wrong
>> destination, I have lied to you.
>
> To my mind the two terms are so similar that in many and most
> circumstances they are interchangeable. I really don't see how intent
> can be part of the respective definitions. Someone can deliberately
> lie, someone can deliberately mislead. Someone can unintentionally lie,
> someone can unintentionally mislead. Intent is, to me anyway, something
> separate.
I don't believe that a lie can be unintentional.
> Where previously I have referred to statements that Bush lied, please
> feel free to interchange this with "deliberately lied" or "deliberately
> misled", as opposed to "unintentionally lied" or "unintentionally
> misled".
>
>> > Do you not see any situation where these terms can be interchangeable,
>> > or on the same level of meaning, or have essentially the same effect?
>>
>> Only to the extent noted above.
>
> Note also my comment above. I equate the terms as essentially the same.
> "Intent" is something assessed independently.
>>
>> > Precisely how exactly is misleading *any* different from lying?
>>
>> The motivation behind the act, the will to decieve, is the determining
>> factor, as I see it.
>
> Someone cannot intentionally mislead? News to me.
No, someone can not unintentionally lie.
--
MajorOz
> support of the claim that I want some sort of authoritarian Lunar
> colony
For Christ's sake, card shuffler, get over it and get on with life.
cheers
oz
Sean
"Pete LaGrange"
<snippage>
>>> The motivation behind the act, the will to decieve, is the determining
>>> factor, as I see it.
>>
>> Someone cannot intentionally mislead? News to me.
>
> No, someone can not unintentionally lie.
I have no real problem with that. An unintentional lie may be better
described by another term.
The important thing here is whether someone can *intentionally mislead*, and
if so, is it the same as lying? I can think of no adequate reason to suggest
it is not essentially the same.
>>> > How many documented and quoted examples in the cited document refer to
>>> > the Bush Administration (including Bush) "misleading" the public.
>>> > Don't
>>> > worry about this one Pete - "Hundreds" is the answer.
>>>
>>> This I do not doubt, although the point I was addressing was one
>>> concerned with the /President's/ truthfulness.
Here it is.
If you accept that the President and his administration made many misleading
statements (as recorded in the cited document), and you accept the evidence
and testimony of others (including high ranking administration officials)
that show the misleading statements were intentional, and you accept that
intentional misleading statements are the same as lies, then you must reach
the judgement that Bush and his administration did indeed lie.
I suppose that means that if you don't accept any one or all of the precepts
in the preceding sentence then your judgement will be either that he didn't
lie, or it is not possible to judge.
As...@tds.net
wrote:
Oz, it is perhaps worth noting that I just stated that I found the
participants humorous, in debating whether or not a third party
(George Bush in this case) was truthful. I still find it humorous,
for that matter. Pete LaGrange was the one who brought out his lie
about what I wanted in a Lunar colony, and then made up a new lie.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As...@tds.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:07:29 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> But "the one proven...liar" on this group?!?!? Right. If you say so.
>>>> Even if you were just a gullible moron, Silver's lies still stand and
>>>> are available to anyone who wants to check Google Groups.
>>>
>>>Yet, amazingly, everyone who has taken the trouble to go back and read
>>>the thread has been, shall we say, less than supportive of your claims.
>>
>> I know. Gullible morons. There does seem to be only a few though.
>
>Thamk you. I'm quite proud to be grouped into such company.
Suit yourself.
>
>>>Shocking!
>>
>> What is shocking is that NO ONE has EVER quoted any post of mine in
>> support of the claim that I want some sort of authoritarian Lunar
>> colony.
>
>Oh stop! YOU posted it. Forbidden equipment and "allowable" pregnancy,
>indeed.
It is probably just as well that I decided to sit on this for a while
before replying. This is considerably toned down compared to what I
originally intended to post.
I would say that the above completely demolishes any "gullible moron"
explanation. I don't think David Silver ever made up any claim about
"allowable pregnancy." This looks like a total fabrication on your
part, not just blindly believing an obvious lie.
For everyone else reading this post: If you want to be considered a
totally brain dead gullible moron who belongs in a group home for the
mentally retarded, just blindly believe either or both of the above
lies. That's all it takes.
I would STILL be HIGHLY interested in any post of mine that could be
misinterpreted to mean either or both of the above, though.
Pete LaGrange
You really ought to understand, at your age, that an argument that
relies on insult rather than fact prolly doesn't fall on the favorable
side of "correct".
> I would STILL be HIGHLY interested in any post of mine that could be
> misinterpreted to mean either or both of the above, though.
Did you not, on Mar 5 2004 at 3:37 pm, in article
<20040305143731...@mb-m24.aol.com>, write the following?
"Still, it should probably be a three step process: (a) get the base
established, then expanded enough to consider sending primates, (b) send
some breeding primates and observe how they do when it comes to
childbearing and (c) possibly authorize and encourage lunar children
based on the results of (b)."
Don't tell me, it doesn't mean what it says, I've misunderstood what you
"believed" and now I am again, a liar. Right?
Get over yourself.
Pete LaGrange
I can find nothing in the above to disagree with.
I find it not possible to judge.
I base this conclusion on the information you (and many others) have supplied
as well as my own investigation.
I am always open to any new, relevent information anyone may have.
In any case, I'd like to thank you for the cordial (as others have
noted) conversation. Will you join me in a Guinness?
As...@tds.net
of masochism.
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:04:25 GMT, Pete LaGrange
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't consider it an insult, just a stateement of my judgement
concerning intelligence and gullibility. Do you consider all negative
statements of these things to be insulting? For example, if I say
that people who get suckered in by Scientific Creationism as
propounded at http://www.icr.org/ to be brain dead gullible morons, is
that just an insult by your standards?
>> I would STILL be HIGHLY interested in any post of mine that could be
>> misinterpreted to mean either or both of the above, though.
>
>Did you not, on Mar 5 2004 at 3:37 pm, in article
><20040305143731...@mb-m24.aol.com>, write the following?
>
>"Still, it should probably be a three step process: (a) get the base
>established, then expanded enough to consider sending primates, (b) send
>some breeding primates and observe how they do when it comes to
>childbearing and (c) possibly authorize and encourage lunar children
>based on the results of (b)."
An actual quote. INTERESTING. Did you notice a couple of words that
I used? You know, probably, possibly? Do you understand their
meanings? If you somehow go from the above to your claims that I want
these things imposed from above, then perhaps you could benefit from
an adult ed reading class?
Also, if we do go from "possibly" to "let's do it this way!" exactly
where did I say that anyone except the colonists themselves should
make the "authorize and encourage" decision?
>
>Don't tell me, it doesn't mean what it says, I've misunderstood what you
>"believed" and now I am again, a liar. Right?
It means exactly what it says, INCLUDING the words "possibly" and
"probably." The initial mistake might have been an honest error. All
subsequent claims made after I attempted to clarify what I had meant
were not errors. They were and are outright, intentional lies, and
will continue to be so.
>
>Get over yourself.
Someday, maybe. The fact that I am replying at all is a good
indication that I have not done so yet.
Pete LaGrange
<snip>
>
>>> I would STILL be HIGHLY interested in any post of mine that could be
>>> misinterpreted to mean either or both of the above, though.
>>
>>Did you not, on Mar 5 2004 at 3:37 pm, in article
>><20040305143731...@mb-m24.aol.com>, write the following?
>>
>>"Still, it should probably be a three step process: (a) get the base
>>established, then expanded enough to consider sending primates, (b) send
>>some breeding primates and observe how they do when it comes to
>>childbearing and (c) possibly authorize and encourage lunar children
>>based on the results of (b)."
>
> An actual quote. INTERESTING. Did you notice a couple of words that
> I used? You know, probably, possibly? Do you understand their
> meanings? If you somehow go from the above to your claims that I want
> these things imposed from above, then perhaps you could benefit from
> an adult ed reading class?
Well, let's go with this latest insult.
a) "Probably" is irrelevant as it refers to the liklihood of the
process having three steps.
b) The converse of possibly authorizing pregnancy is what?
c) Who the hell (besides the woman) has the authority to authorize (or
not) pregnancy?
d) "Possibly", there is a remedial writing class available, as well.
> Also, if we do go from "possibly" to "let's do it this way!" exactly
> where did I say that anyone except the colonists themselves should
> make the "authorize and encourage" decision?
Who the hell (besides the woman) has the authority to authorize (or
not) pregnancy? If it anyone besides the woman in question, you have an
authoritarian government. If it is left to the woman, why did you feel
the need to bring it up?
>>Don't tell me, it doesn't mean what it says, I've misunderstood what you
>>"believed" and now I am again, a liar. Right?
>
> It means exactly what it says, INCLUDING the words "possibly" and
> "probably."
I agree, see above. You were the one claiming to be misunderstood.
> The initial mistake might have been an honest error. All
> subsequent claims made after I attempted to clarify what I had meant
> were not errors. They were and are outright, intentional lies, and
> will continue to be so.
There was an error. You made it, and you continue to berate folks for
your failings.
>>Get over yourself.
>
> Someday, maybe. The fact that I am replying at all is a good
> indication that I have not done so yet.
We agree on something, at least.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As...@tds.net wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>>> I would STILL be HIGHLY interested in any post of mine that could be
>>>> misinterpreted to mean either or both of the above, though.
>>>
>>>Did you not, on Mar 5 2004 at 3:37 pm, in article
>>><20040305143731...@mb-m24.aol.com>, write the following?
>>>
>>>"Still, it should probably be a three step process: (a) get the base
>>>established, then expanded enough to consider sending primates, (b) send
>>>some breeding primates and observe how they do when it comes to
>>>childbearing and (c) possibly authorize and encourage lunar children
>>>based on the results of (b)."
>>
>> An actual quote. INTERESTING. Did you notice a couple of words that
>> I used? You know, probably, possibly? Do you understand their
>> meanings? If you somehow go from the above to your claims that I want
>> these things imposed from above, then perhaps you could benefit from
>> an adult ed reading class?
>
>Well, let's go with this latest insult.
>
>a) "Probably" is irrelevant as it refers to the liklihood of the
>process having three steps.
Hmmm...that is not the way I intended it. Furthermore, in context, I
don't think it should have been interpreted that way, although I agree
that in terms of grammar you are correct. Why would the number 3 have
any particular significance to me? It doesn't.
>
>b) The converse of possibly authorizing pregnancy is what?
Holding off temporarily or permanently.
>
>c) Who the hell (besides the woman) has the authority to authorize (or
>not) pregnancy?
Every single last person affected, such as fellow colonists.
However, there should be no conflict on this. If there is, we picked
the wrong crew. One of the things I have discussed is that for a long
time these people will have to get along far better than most small
groups in confined quarters do. Ex submariners might be just the sort
of person we need, and we should definitely look into how submarine
crews are trained and how they operate.
If, during selection and training, a woman announces that she intends
to have the first Lunar baby, and that she intends to start cooking it
immediately after landing, and any other member of the crew states
that is a bad idea, the situation should be resolved long before the
first launch. It might be resolved by getting these two to agree, or
it might be resolved by replacing one or both, but it has to be
resolved.
We need the sort of crew who will NOT decide things by a majority
vote. Instead we need people who will unanimously agree on almost all
issues. If they can't, we start looking at replacements.
>
>d) "Possibly", there is a remedial writing class available, as well.
Perhaps.
>
>> Also, if we do go from "possibly" to "let's do it this way!" exactly
>> where did I say that anyone except the colonists themselves should
>> make the "authorize and encourage" decision?
>
> Who the hell (besides the woman) has the authority to authorize (or
> not) pregnancy? If it anyone besides the woman in question, you have an
> authoritarian government.
A team that can reach unanimous agreement on this and other issues is
not authoritarian, in my opinion. How do you see unanimous agreement
on when to have children as being authoritarian?
If it is left to the woman, why did you feel
> the need to bring it up?
Well, you know, I have a rather strong opinion on something. As far
as I am concerned, when people have children, the welfare of those
children should be their number one priority. If they are unwilling
to do that, they should not have children. There is no way to enforce
this, and all too often it does not happen, but I still think this
SHOULD be the case.
I think this should be the case on the moon too. I think part of a
child's welfare should be a reasonable expectation of surviving long
enough to die from natural causes. It won't ever be a guarantee, here
or on the moon, and for a long time life on the moon will be quite a
bit more dangerous than life here on Earth, for adults or children. I
can accept danger, but I am less willing to see children born into a
situation where we don't even have a good handle on the probability of
survival.
Ever seen the movie On the Beach? It's one of my favorites. When Lt.
Holmes is telling his wife Mary about what might happen near the end
when the radiation reaches them, she objects to ever killing her baby,
Jennifer, for any reason. Holmes tells her that if she does not, Mary
might die first, leaving Jennifer alone and helpless, to die from
hunger or thirst rather than radiation.
I can see this happening on the moon. We don't know how many people
we will send, and a lot will depend on the budget. Let's say this is
an economy model colony, with only two people, a man and a woman,
married or at least in some kind of relationship, age and other
factors such that they can have children. She gets pregnant soon
after arrival, presumably with the approval of her SO.
Baby is born, and everything looks great. It's in its crib, the place
has been baby proofed as much as possible (and that might be a LOT
harder than baby proofing an Earthside home), and all that. One
parent is on the surface, and gets into trouble, an accident, a suit
failure, anything. The other suits up and heads out. They both die.
Now the child lays in its crib until overcome by hunger, thirst, or a
failure of the now unattended life support systems. For the kid's
sake, I hope it is something sudden such as explosive decompression.
Thirst, especially, is a very unpleasant way to die.
Anyone who is callous enough take chances on placing children in such
a situation is not going to be a suitable colonist, in my opinion.
We also don't know if long term survival will be possible. I am
willing to send adult volunteers into such a situation, where they
might end up in a hopeless situation just waiting to die. I am
unwilling to put children into such a situation, when they have not
given any sort of consent, informed or otherwise.
Pete LaGrange
Ah, the magic word..."opinion". In your opinion such a setup is not
authoritarian, in my opinion (and seemingly others, as well) it is. This
make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
/You/ are willing, /you/ are unwilling...Do you really not
understand how this could be percieved to be authoritarian in
someone eles's opinion
In any case, thank you for the cordial post.
Pete LaGrange
Ah, the magic word..."opinion". In your opinion such a setup is not
authoritarian, in my opinion (and seemingly others, as well) it is. This
may make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
> If it is left to the woman, why did you feel
/You/ are willing, /you/ are unwilling...Do you really not
understand how this could be percieved to be authoritarian in
someone eles's opinion
In any case, thank you for the cordial post.
--
Pete LaGrange
Ah, the magic word..."opinion". In your opinion such a setup is not
authoritarian, in my opinion (and seemingly others, as well) it is. This
may make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
> If it is left to the woman, why did you feel
/You/ are willing, /you/ are unwilling...Do you really not
understand how this could be percieved to be authoritarian in
someone eles's opinion?
In any case, thank you for the cordial post.
--
Pete LaGrange
The rest of you will have no idea what I'm on about.
Dr. Rufo
Pete LaGrange wrote:
> Apologies to those whose servers do not honor supersedes.
>
> The rest of you will have no idea what I'm on about.
>
Shucks, Pete, I thought you were providing an exammple of RAH's "I
tell you three times." < wEg >
Sean
"Pete LaGrange"
<snip>
> I can find nothing in the above to disagree with.
>
> I find it not possible to judge.
>
> I base this conclusion on the information you (and many others) have
> supplied
> as well as my own investigation.
>
> I am always open to any new, relevent information anyone may have.
>
> In any case, I'd like to thank you for the cordial (as others have
> noted) conversation. Will you join me in a Guinness?
Of course. I would also invite any weary bystanders. Rufo etc.....
--
Sean
Recently returned from Ireland and losing count of his study tours of the
Guinness Brewery :-)
[RAH on Australians in _Tramp Royale_ "They think as we do, only more so."]
Dr. Rufo
Sean wrote:
> "Pete LaGrange"
>
> <snip>
>
>>I can find nothing in the above to disagree with.
>>
>>I find it not possible to judge.
>>
>>I base this conclusion on the information you (and many others) have
>>supplied
>>as well as my own investigation.
>>
>>I am always open to any new, relevent information anyone may have.
>>
>>In any case, I'd like to thank you for the cordial (as others have
>>noted) conversation. Will you join me in a Guinness?
>
>
> Of course. I would also invite any weary bystanders. Rufo etc.....
>
Would you gents mind if I cut my Guinness with some cheap
champagne? That combination reminds me of a surpassingly agile young
lady I knew quite well during the spring of 1969. She claimed to be
Irish and mighta been -- but I KNEW she was a *real* red-head. --
Ah, youth!
Rufe
Pete LaGrange
Not by design. ;-)
BTW, I've put a few of the photos alex brought home up at
<http://67.85.71.230:7776/alex/images.html>
look for the link at the top of the page that says "Newest Photos Here".
Mom still hasn't gotten the roll she took in WA developed (guess I'll
have to do it).
Pete LaGrange
>
>
> "Pete LaGrange"
>
><snip>
>
>> I can find nothing in the above to disagree with.
>>
>> I find it not possible to judge.
>>
>> I base this conclusion on the information you (and many others) have
>> supplied
>> as well as my own investigation.
>>
>> I am always open to any new, relevent information anyone may have.
>>
>> In any case, I'd like to thank you for the cordial (as others have
>> noted) conversation. Will you join me in a Guinness?
>
> Of course. I would also invite any weary bystanders. Rufo etc.....
Outstanding! A round for the house, then.
Pete LaGrange
I was just a tot, but anything that brings back the sixties can't be
bad. I might just join you.
David M. Silver
Pete LaGrange <oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nice to see them, Pete. And the operative word that makes me happy, but
not as happy as you, is "home." And I'll have one of those drinks in the
round you and Rufo have been enjoying.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Pete LaGrange
> In article <rPJ1f.3489$WT5...@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
> Pete LaGrange <oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Rufo wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Pete LaGrange wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apologies to those whose servers do not honor supersedes.
>> >>
>> >> The rest of you will have no idea what I'm on about.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Shucks, Pete, I thought you were providing an exammple of RAH's "I
>> > tell you three times." < wEg >
>> >
>>
>> Not by design. ;-)
>>
>> BTW, I've put a few of the photos alex brought home up at
>> <http://67.85.71.230:7776/alex/images.html>
>> look for the link at the top of the page that says "Newest Photos Here".
>> Mom still hasn't gotten the roll she took in WA developed (guess I'll
>> have to do it).
>
> Nice to see them, Pete. And the operative word that makes me happy, but
> not as happy as you, is "home." And I'll have one of those drinks in the
> round you and Rufo have been enjoying.
We're all very relieved. Thanks for your concern and your support.
Please, enjoy a virtual drink on me, I look forward to the day I can
provide you a real one.
Dr. Rufo
Pete LaGrange wrote:
I found 'em in your other post. My suitably smart-ass remarks are
posted there. < wEg >
Rufe
jeanette
the "allowability of births" aspects of the lunar colony. LV's plan has
evolved. The earliest drafts that I remember made babies seem almost a
whim of the women. I made several posts insisting that there is a lot
of responsibility involved in having children and that a baby would
affect the entire colony.
Jeanette
Pete LaGrange
Yes, I remember. My main concern has always been the accusations that I
feel were unjustly leveled at me. Babies are a deep concern and a thorny
dilemma, that fact does not make me something I am not, though. Thanks
for refreshing my memory.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<massively snipping, even though I am going to be critical of one of
your snips>
>> A team that can reach unanimous agreement on this and other issues is
>> not authoritarian, in my opinion. How do you see unanimous agreement
>> on when to have children as being authoritarian?
>
>Ah, the magic word..."opinion". In your opinion such a setup is not
>authoritarian, in my opinion (and seemingly others, as well) it is.
Hold it. Hold it. Maybe we better try to reach some accomodation as
to what is meant by authoritarian.
Do you actually think that rules and regulations, imposed by anyone by
any means for any purpose, is somehow LESS authoritarian than getting
people to agree ahead of time as to goals and how to achieve them, and
selecting people on this basis so that rules and regulations are
unneeded? Am I reading the above right? Or am I missing something?
The dictionaries seem to agree with me. From
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority,
as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See
Synonyms at dictatorial.
I think the key word here is "obedience." You favor someone obeying
someone. Maybe it is a woman obeying orders to not have babies, or
maybe it is the rest of the colonists obeying orders to accomodate a
pregnant woman and later child in the early days of the colony. I
favor no one obeying a damn thing, because they have agreed ahead of
time on this and any other concievable issue.
This
>may make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
>does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
I will admit that using a word in a completely unique way, completely
unsupported by dictionary definition, common usage, or anything else,
and not announcing that you are doing so, might be something other
than lying, but I think you should understand that it is very easy for
this to be construed that way.
To avoid misunderstandings in the future, maybe you should ANNOUNCE
whenever you are using a word in an unconventional way?
Ummm...no...and once again, it looks like you may be using
"authoritarian" in a completely unique way. Now for my criticism:
you snipped what I considered to be the most important statement. Let
me bring it back:
>>Anyone who is callous enough take chances on placing children in such
>>a situation is not going to be a suitable colonist, in my opinion.
Really, I am expressing an opinion (clearly marked as such) on what
might be an appropriate selection criteria for Lunar colonists. Doing
so is "authoritarian?" Huh? I have expressed other selection
criteria that I think would be good ideas. Good health is one of
them. An ability to take raw lunar regolith, a tool kit, and some
plants from hydroponics, and turn them into beverage alcohol, is one
of them. An ability to take raw lunar regolith and the tool kit, and
turn them into a habitat that contains hydroponics is one of them.
And...a willingness to agree with fellow colonists, the project
manager, and a staff of various experts as to what the colony goals
should be, and how to achieve them.
"Authoritarian." Not by any dictionary definition or common usage
that I am familiar with.
>
>In any case, thank you for the cordial post.
Well, in case you had not noticed something, we are looking at
something that I actually posted. That can make a difference in my
level of cordiality.
As...@tds.net
>Ummm...no...and once again, it looks like you may be using
>"authoritarian" in a completely unique way. Now for my criticism:
>you snipped what I considered to be the most important statement. Let
>me bring it back:
Oh good grief, maybe I shouldn't post when I have insomnia. Looking
back, you didn't snip that at all. Well, I still consider it to be
the most important statement of what I posted, and stand by the rest.
Sean
> Would you gents mind if I cut my Guinness with some cheap champagne? That
> combination reminds me of a surpassingly agile young lady I knew quite
> well during the spring of 1969. She claimed to be Irish and mighta been --
> but I KNEW she was a *real* red-head. --
> Ah, youth!
Pardon me while I gag as you desecrate the sacred holy water! :-)
I always wondered how someone can know if someone was a *real* colour when
the bottle has no prejudice as to where it is applied. Hmmm?
Shucks, when I was at the Guinness Brewery last month I couldn't help
thinking about the clientelle of this li'l bar in cyber-space. An AFH meet
in Ireland one year would not be out of the question, would it?
--
Sean
As...@tds.net
A deep concern and a thorny dilemma, eh? Then I take it that you
don't mind being called an authoritarian? After all, that is exactly
my views on the matter. If either one of us is an authoritarian, then
the other one is too. Right?
Pete LaGrange
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:55:56 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><massively snipping, even though I am going to be critical of one of
> your snips>
>
>>> A team that can reach unanimous agreement on this and other issues is
>>> not authoritarian, in my opinion. How do you see unanimous agreement
>>> on when to have children as being authoritarian?
>>
>>Ah, the magic word..."opinion". In your opinion such a setup is not
>>authoritarian, in my opinion (and seemingly others, as well) it is.
>
> Hold it. Hold it. Maybe we better try to reach some accomodation as
> to what is meant by authoritarian.
>
> Do you actually think that rules and regulations, imposed by anyone by
> any means for any purpose, is somehow LESS authoritarian than getting
> people to agree ahead of time as to goals and how to achieve them, and
> selecting people on this basis so that rules and regulations are
> unneeded? Am I reading the above right? Or am I missing something?
I think you are missing the fact that people often change their minds.
What do you do in that case? Nothing? OK, not authoritarian but why
bother with the rule in the first place then?
> The dictionaries seem to agree with me. From
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
>
> 1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority,
> as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
> 2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See
> Synonyms at dictatorial.
>
> I think the key word here is "obedience." You favor someone obeying
> someone. Maybe it is a woman obeying orders to not have babies, or
> maybe it is the rest of the colonists obeying orders to accomodate a
> pregnant woman and later child in the early days of the colony. I
> favor no one obeying a damn thing, because they have agreed ahead of
> time on this and any other concievable issue.
I favor nothing, I was merely pointing out potential pitfalls as I saw
them. I assumed that that was what you wanted when you posted the
original proposal (which I still consider to be a positive contribution,
BTW). You are not the first to be annoyed by this behaviour.
> This
>>may make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
>>does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
>
> I will admit that using a word in a completely unique way, completely
> unsupported by dictionary definition, common usage, or anything else,
> and not announcing that you are doing so, might be something other
> than lying, but I think you should understand that it is very easy for
> this to be construed that way.
I don't think it is unique to recognize that the may be degrees of
authoritarianism, some of which I may be uncomfortable with. This is one
instance. Also, are you not requiring that women who would qualify
maintain absolute obediance to the promise to not become pregnant?
> To avoid misunderstandings in the future, maybe you should ANNOUNCE
> whenever you are using a word in an unconventional way?
When that happens, I'll try to do that.
It's not callousness, people grow, people learn, people change. The day
may come when perfectly reasonable people may disagree as to the safety
or benefits of having a baby. All I want to know is: Who decides when
that day comes? Again, if it anyone other than the mother, the
government of the colony is too authoritarian /in my opinion/.
>>> We also don't know if long term survival will be possible. I am
>>> willing to send adult volunteers into such a situation, where they
>>> might end up in a hopeless situation just waiting to die. I am
>>> unwilling to put children into such a situation, when they have not
>>> given any sort of consent, informed or otherwise.
>>
>>/You/ are willing, /you/ are unwilling...Do you really not
>>understand how this could be percieved to be authoritarian in
>>someone eles's opinion?
>
> Ummm...no...and once again, it looks like you may be using
> "authoritarian" in a completely unique way.
For the sake of arguement, let us agree, for the moment, that this is
true. It may make me a poor speaker of English but it does not, I
contend, make me a liar. Would you agree?
> Now for my criticism:
> you snipped what I considered to be the most important statement. Let
> me bring it back:
>
>>>Anyone who is callous enough take chances on placing children in such
>>>a situation is not going to be a suitable colonist, in my opinion.
You've already addressed this in another post, I see.
> Really, I am expressing an opinion (clearly marked as such) on what
> might be an appropriate selection criteria for Lunar colonists. Doing
> so is "authoritarian?" Huh? I have expressed other selection
> criteria that I think would be good ideas. Good health is one of
> them. An ability to take raw lunar regolith, a tool kit, and some
> plants from hydroponics, and turn them into beverage alcohol, is one
> of them. An ability to take raw lunar regolith and the tool kit, and
> turn them into a habitat that contains hydroponics is one of them.
>
> And...a willingness to agree with fellow colonists, the project
> manager, and a staff of various experts as to what the colony goals
> should be, and how to achieve them.
>
> "Authoritarian." Not by any dictionary definition or common usage
> that I am familiar with.
And in my opinion, it is authoritarian. That means we disagree, it does
not make us liars.
>>In any case, thank you for the cordial post.
>
> Well, in case you had not noticed something, we are looking at
> something that I actually posted. That can make a difference in my
> level of cordiality.
--
Pete LaGrange
Social Security is also a deep concern and a thorny dilemma, that
doesn't make me a Communist, does it?
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This seems like a non sequitur. No, it does not make you a communist,
any more than a considering babies in a Lunar colony makes either one
of us an authoritarian. What is your point?
BTW, I do agree about Social Security.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As...@tds.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:55:56 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><massively snipping, even though I am going to be critical of one of
>> your snips>
>>
>>>> A team that can reach unanimous agreement on this and other issues is
>>>> not authoritarian, in my opinion. How do you see unanimous agreement
>>>> on when to have children as being authoritarian?
>>>
>>>Ah, the magic word..."opinion". In your opinion such a setup is not
>>>authoritarian, in my opinion (and seemingly others, as well) it is.
>>
>> Hold it. Hold it. Maybe we better try to reach some accomodation as
>> to what is meant by authoritarian.
>>
>> Do you actually think that rules and regulations, imposed by anyone by
>> any means for any purpose, is somehow LESS authoritarian than getting
>> people to agree ahead of time as to goals and how to achieve them, and
>> selecting people on this basis so that rules and regulations are
>> unneeded? Am I reading the above right? Or am I missing something?
>
>I think you are missing the fact that people often change their minds.
>What do you do in that case?
We send people who won't be changing their minds.
Nothing? OK, not authoritarian but why
>bother with the rule in the first place then?
What rule?
>
>> The dictionaries seem to agree with me. From
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
>>
>> 1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority,
>> as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
>> 2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See
>> Synonyms at dictatorial.
>>
>> I think the key word here is "obedience." You favor someone obeying
>> someone. Maybe it is a woman obeying orders to not have babies, or
>> maybe it is the rest of the colonists obeying orders to accomodate a
>> pregnant woman and later child in the early days of the colony. I
>> favor no one obeying a damn thing, because they have agreed ahead of
>> time on this and any other concievable issue.
>
>I favor nothing,
I thought you favored a non authoritarian system?
I was merely pointing out potential pitfalls as I saw
>them. I assumed that that was what you wanted when you posted the
>original proposal (which I still consider to be a positive contribution,
>BTW). You are not the first to be annoyed by this behaviour.
>
>> This
>>>may make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
>>>does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
>>
>> I will admit that using a word in a completely unique way, completely
>> unsupported by dictionary definition, common usage, or anything else,
>> and not announcing that you are doing so, might be something other
>> than lying, but I think you should understand that it is very easy for
>> this to be construed that way.
>
>I don't think it is unique to recognize that the may be degrees of
>authoritarianism, some of which I may be uncomfortable with.
For me, take out the "some."
This is one
>instance. Also, are you not requiring that women who would qualify
>maintain absolute obediance to the promise to not become pregnant?
Only if they voluntarily do so.
>
>> To avoid misunderstandings in the future, maybe you should ANNOUNCE
>> whenever you are using a word in an unconventional way?
>
>When that happens, I'll try to do that.
You seem to be defining "autoritarianism" as "unanimous agreement
ahead of time, before anyone commits to anything." Dictionary or
other reference, please?
Anyone who can change this much is not a suitable candidate for any
colony where I provide the funding and/or where I am the project
manager. YMMV.
The day
>may come when perfectly reasonable people may disagree as to the safety
>or benefits of having a baby.
They will have to unanimously agree to these standards ahead of time.
All I want to know is: Who decides when
>that day comes?
The colonists. Who else?
Again, if it anyone other than the mother, the
>government of the colony is too authoritarian /in my opinion/.
We send colonists who will not disagree on this.
>
>>>> We also don't know if long term survival will be possible. I am
>>>> willing to send adult volunteers into such a situation, where they
>>>> might end up in a hopeless situation just waiting to die. I am
>>>> unwilling to put children into such a situation, when they have not
>>>> given any sort of consent, informed or otherwise.
>>>
>>>/You/ are willing, /you/ are unwilling...Do you really not
>>>understand how this could be percieved to be authoritarian in
>>>someone eles's opinion?
>>
>> Ummm...no...and once again, it looks like you may be using
>> "authoritarian" in a completely unique way.
>
>For the sake of arguement, let us agree, for the moment, that this is
>true. It may make me a poor speaker of English but it does not, I
>contend, make me a liar. Would you agree?
I don't know. Did you even bother to look up the dictionary
definition, at any point?
Pete LaGrange
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:07:48 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As...@tds.net wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:55:56 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>>><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><massively snipping, even though I am going to be critical of one of
>>> your snips>
>>>
>>>>> A team that can reach unanimous agreement on this and other issues is
>>>>> not authoritarian, in my opinion. How do you see unanimous agreement
>>>>> on when to have children as being authoritarian?
>>>>
>>>>Ah, the magic word..."opinion". In your opinion such a setup is not
>>>>authoritarian, in my opinion (and seemingly others, as well) it is.
>>>
>>> Hold it. Hold it. Maybe we better try to reach some accomodation as
>>> to what is meant by authoritarian.
>>>
>>> Do you actually think that rules and regulations, imposed by anyone by
>>> any means for any purpose, is somehow LESS authoritarian than getting
>>> people to agree ahead of time as to goals and how to achieve them, and
>>> selecting people on this basis so that rules and regulations are
>>> unneeded? Am I reading the above right? Or am I missing something?
>>
>>I think you are missing the fact that people often change their minds.
>>What do you do in that case?
>
> We send people who won't be changing their minds.
And you guarantee this, how, exactly?
In the unlikely event that your methods turn out to be less than
perfect, what happens to the baby? The Mother? The Father?
> Nothing? OK, not authoritarian but why
>>bother with the rule in the first place then?
>
> What rule?
The rule that authorizes babies at some point. What happens to
"unauthorized" babies, born before this point?
>>> The dictionaries seem to agree with me. From
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
>>>
>>> 1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority,
>>> as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
>>> 2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See
>>> Synonyms at dictatorial.
>>>
>>> I think the key word here is "obedience." You favor someone obeying
>>> someone. Maybe it is a woman obeying orders to not have babies, or
>>> maybe it is the rest of the colonists obeying orders to accomodate a
>>> pregnant woman and later child in the early days of the colony. I
>>> favor no one obeying a damn thing, because they have agreed ahead of
>>> time on this and any other concievable issue.
>>
>>I favor nothing,
>
> I thought you favored a non authoritarian system?
Correction: I have not stated that I favor anything. You may reasonably
conclude, based on my posts, what I actually favor and you have.
I am merely pointing out potential difficulties as I see them in order
that they might be solved or at least thought through, beforehand.
In all honesty, I wouldn't go to the trouble if I didn't think your
proposal had merit.
> I was merely pointing out potential pitfalls as I saw
>>them. I assumed that that was what you wanted when you posted the
>>original proposal (which I still consider to be a positive contribution,
>>BTW). You are not the first to be annoyed by this behaviour.
>>
>>> This
>>>>may make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
>>>>does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
>>>
>>> I will admit that using a word in a completely unique way, completely
>>> unsupported by dictionary definition, common usage, or anything else,
>>> and not announcing that you are doing so, might be something other
>>> than lying, but I think you should understand that it is very easy for
>>> this to be construed that way.
>>
>>I don't think it is unique to recognize that the may be degrees of
>>authoritarianism, some of which I may be uncomfortable with.
>
> For me, take out the "some."
Then you agree that it is not unique to recognize that the may be
degrees of authoritarianism?
> This is one
>>instance. Also, are you not requiring that women who would qualify
>>maintain absolute obediance to the promise to not become pregnant?
>
> Only if they voluntarily do so.
And are they also only required to not change their mind if they
voluntarily do so? If yes, why even bring it up?
>>> To avoid misunderstandings in the future, maybe you should ANNOUNCE
>>> whenever you are using a word in an unconventional way?
>>
>>When that happens, I'll try to do that.
>
> You seem to be defining "autoritarianism" as "unanimous agreement
> ahead of time, before anyone commits to anything." Dictionary or
> other reference, please?
Again, I am recognizing that there are degrees of authoritarianism.
I think your expectations are unrealistic.
> The day
>>may come when perfectly reasonable people may disagree as to the safety
>>or benefits of having a baby.
>
> They will have to unanimously agree to these standards ahead of time.
Let me understand. You are saying that a woman will have to agree to not
have a child until the rest of the colony decides that it is allowable,
with the possibility that this will never happen, right?
> All I want to know is: Who decides when
>>that day comes?
>
> The colonists. Who else?
The colonists, IOW the government or the colony. Will this also be by
unanimous consent? What will you do if there is one unreasonable
hold-out?
> Again, if it anyone other than the mother, the
>>government of the colony is too authoritarian /in my opinion/.
>
> We send colonists who will not disagree on this.
Again, I think your expectations are unrealistic.
What method do you expect to use to guarantee the future? If it is a yet
to be discovered method I'd suggest that FTL travel and teleportation
are probably more likely to solve the issue.
Are you planning a rigid chain of events or are you planning for
contingencies? If it is the former, I'd suggest you re-evalulate your
qualifications to be planning such a thing, at all.
>>>>> We also don't know if long term survival will be possible. I am
>>>>> willing to send adult volunteers into such a situation, where they
>>>>> might end up in a hopeless situation just waiting to die. I am
>>>>> unwilling to put children into such a situation, when they have not
>>>>> given any sort of consent, informed or otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>/You/ are willing, /you/ are unwilling...Do you really not
>>>>understand how this could be percieved to be authoritarian in
>>>>someone eles's opinion?
>>>
>>> Ummm...no...and once again, it looks like you may be using
>>> "authoritarian" in a completely unique way.
>>
>>For the sake of arguement, let us agree, for the moment, that this is
>>true. It may make me a poor speaker of English but it does not, I
>>contend, make me a liar. Would you agree?
>
> I don't know. Did you even bother to look up the dictionary
> definition, at any point?
I did. Did you understand my meaning when I said I am discussing
degrees of authoritarianism?
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Guarantee? I don't. How do I guarantee anything whatsoever about the
colonists? How do I guarantee that none of them will be Luddite
suicide terrorists who will destroy the colony at the first
opportunity? I don't.
I have mentioned a crew selection process that will be at least as
rigorous as the selection process for the Mercury astronauts. It
seems to me that such a selection process should be able to weed out
terrorists, untrustworthy people, and such.
>
>In the unlikely event that your methods turn out to be less than
>perfect, what happens to the baby? The Mother? The Father?
I guess whatever happens to any other baby, mother and father.
>
>> Nothing? OK, not authoritarian but why
>>>bother with the rule in the first place then?
>>
>> What rule?
>
>The rule that authorizes babies at some point. What happens to
>"unauthorized" babies, born before this point?
I guess they get raised.
>
>>>> The dictionaries seem to agree with me. From
>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
>>>>
>>>> 1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority,
>>>> as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
>>>> 2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See
>>>> Synonyms at dictatorial.
>>>>
>>>> I think the key word here is "obedience." You favor someone obeying
>>>> someone. Maybe it is a woman obeying orders to not have babies, or
>>>> maybe it is the rest of the colonists obeying orders to accomodate a
>>>> pregnant woman and later child in the early days of the colony. I
>>>> favor no one obeying a damn thing, because they have agreed ahead of
>>>> time on this and any other concievable issue.
>>>
>>>I favor nothing,
>>
>> I thought you favored a non authoritarian system?
>
>Correction: I have not stated that I favor anything. You may reasonably
>conclude, based on my posts, what I actually favor and you have.
>
>I am merely pointing out potential difficulties as I see them in order
>that they might be solved or at least thought through, beforehand.
That has been my emphasis right from teh beginning.
>
>In all honesty, I wouldn't go to the trouble if I didn't think your
>proposal had merit.
>
>> I was merely pointing out potential pitfalls as I saw
>>>them. I assumed that that was what you wanted when you posted the
>>>original proposal (which I still consider to be a positive contribution,
>>>BTW). You are not the first to be annoyed by this behaviour.
>>>
>>>> This
>>>>>may make us overzealous in the defense of liberty or over sensitive but it
>>>>>does not make us liars. Please stop calling me, at least, one.
>>>>
>>>> I will admit that using a word in a completely unique way, completely
>>>> unsupported by dictionary definition, common usage, or anything else,
>>>> and not announcing that you are doing so, might be something other
>>>> than lying, but I think you should understand that it is very easy for
>>>> this to be construed that way.
>>>
>>>I don't think it is unique to recognize that the may be degrees of
>>>authoritarianism, some of which I may be uncomfortable with.
>>
>> For me, take out the "some."
>
>Then you agree that it is not unique to recognize that the may be
>degrees of authoritarianism?
Degrees, yes. A completely voluntary system such as I propose would
be ZERO (0) degree of authoritarianism.
>
>> This is one
>>>instance. Also, are you not requiring that women who would qualify
>>>maintain absolute obediance to the promise to not become pregnant?
>>
>> Only if they voluntarily do so.
>
>And are they also only required to not change their mind if they
>voluntarily do so? If yes, why even bring it up?
Select the people who will not go back on their word in the first
place.
>
>>>> To avoid misunderstandings in the future, maybe you should ANNOUNCE
>>>> whenever you are using a word in an unconventional way?
>>>
>>>When that happens, I'll try to do that.
>>
>> You seem to be defining "autoritarianism" as "unanimous agreement
>> ahead of time, before anyone commits to anything." Dictionary or
>> other reference, please?
>
>Again, I am recognizing that there are degrees of authoritarianism.
Including zero?
Oh? Why?
>
>> The day
>>>may come when perfectly reasonable people may disagree as to the safety
>>>or benefits of having a baby.
>>
>> They will have to unanimously agree to these standards ahead of time.
>
>Let me understand. You are saying that a woman will have to agree to not
>have a child until the rest of the colony decides that it is allowable,
>with the possibility that this will never happen, right?
Yes. If she is unwilling to agree to that, she can stay on Earth.
>
>> All I want to know is: Who decides when
>>>that day comes?
>>
>> The colonists. Who else?
>
>The colonists, IOW the government or the colony. Will this also be by
>unanimous consent?
It had bloody well better be.
What will you do if there is one unreasonable
>hold-out?
Ok, this response requires two different viewpoints. One is the
viewpoint of the colonists. They will have to solve the situation.
Solving situations will be nothing new to them (if it is, they are
probably dead already). I have already specified that these must be
people who can get along FAR better than your average group in
confined quarters. As to exactly how to solve it, that depends on the
exact situation and what they come up with.
Ok, now for the viewpoint of the people on Earth. Let's say that I am
the project manager (you would be better off buying a megamillions
ticket than betting on this, but let that slide). The project has
sent an untrustworthy person to the moon.
I would perform several actions. The very first would be an immediate
suspension of all manned flights for anything except a literal life
and death emergency. We made the incredibly drastic and ridiculous
mistake of sending an untrustworthy person to the colony, and we MUST
make sure that it NEVER happens again.
Then I would fire everyone who approved of this person becoming a
colonist. Presumably we have a selection board. If anyone voted "no"
they stay. If they voted "yes" they update their resume.
Then I would initiate the most incredibly thorough investigation seen
in the history of the human race. The Columbia accident investigation
would seem like a cursory spot check compared to what I would set in
motion. Once again, we MUST know what went wrong and how to avoid it
in the future.
Note that I said I would initiate it. Once it is in motion, I would
resign. Even if the mistake were not my fault directly, it still
happened on my watch, and the man at the top has to take responsibilty
for all mistakes. The one and only way to take responsibility for a
mistake this drastic is to resign.
Not only would a drastic mistake of this nature endanger the whole
colony, it violates one of the fundamental principles of colonization
as I see it. The colonists will have a large number of known but
unavoidable problems, some of them serious. They will also face an
unknown number of unknown problems, and these will be of unknown
seriousness. Any problem that can be solved on Earth should be solved
there. An untrustworthy colonist is a problem that can and should be
solved on Earth during crew selection.
>
>> Again, if it anyone other than the mother, the
>>>government of the colony is too authoritarian /in my opinion/.
>>
>> We send colonists who will not disagree on this.
>
>Again, I think your expectations are unrealistic.
I think you are underestimating how well we can select a crew.
>
>What method do you expect to use to guarantee the future? If it is a yet
>to be discovered method I'd suggest that FTL travel and teleportation
>are probably more likely to solve the issue.
How about hiring personell experts to make recommendations on how to
select a crew?
>
>Are you planning a rigid chain of events or are you planning for
>contingencies? If it is the former, I'd suggest you re-evalulate your
>qualifications to be planning such a thing, at all.
I have emphasized all along that this plan MUST include contingencies,
including the concept that they will run into problems never even
dreamed of on Earth. An EXCELLENT reason to have the most rigorous
crew selection process in human history.
>
>>>>>> We also don't know if long term survival will be possible. I am
>>>>>> willing to send adult volunteers into such a situation, where they
>>>>>> might end up in a hopeless situation just waiting to die. I am
>>>>>> unwilling to put children into such a situation, when they have not
>>>>>> given any sort of consent, informed or otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>/You/ are willing, /you/ are unwilling...Do you really not
>>>>>understand how this could be percieved to be authoritarian in
>>>>>someone eles's opinion?
>>>>
>>>> Ummm...no...and once again, it looks like you may be using
>>>> "authoritarian" in a completely unique way.
>>>
>>>For the sake of arguement, let us agree, for the moment, that this is
>>>true. It may make me a poor speaker of English but it does not, I
>>>contend, make me a liar. Would you agree?
>>
>> I don't know. Did you even bother to look up the dictionary
>> definition, at any point?
>
>I did. Did you understand my meaning when I said I am discussing
>degrees of authoritarianism?
No, unless you include zero as a degree, or consider an entirely
voluntary agreement as some sort of authoritarianism.
Pete LaGrange
<You may snip the above, at your leisure. I only include it so you can
check my understanding.>
Allow me to restate, so I can be sure I understand.
You intend to sign a woman to a contract by which she is not bound. A
contract that she can break at any time (with a little help) after the
mission actually begins and carries no penalty for non-compliance.
In the event this contract is broken you intend to scrub the mission
(except for life saving essenials) and spend the rest of your resourses
investigating and ascertaining responsibility.
Do I understand your position, so far?
One other question. If the selection process is as good as you say it
is, why not just select women who are mature enough to decide for
themselves when it is reasonable to become pregnant?
Sorry, one more. Do you think the colonists, knowing they will be cut
off, will schedule a vote to authorize children moments after the
pregnancy becomes known? (Oh, yeah, base. We voted to authorize kids
and...what a coincidence...Mary just got pregnant.)
I'm not understanding the motivation behind even considering an
authorized or unauthorized status for children without being much better
able to reconcile the freedom of the woman to choose against the
inability to enforce the contract. I think the decision is up to the
woman, I think the decision has always been up to the woman and I think
the decision will always be up to the woman (barring forcable assault,
of course). I think trying to monkey with that decision will end up badly.
I trust women enough to allow them to make that decision. Not all will
choose wisely but the selection process will surely weed out the worst
cases. In short, I don't even see the need to bring it up.
Pete LaGrange
My point is that recognizing an issue as a problem does not necessarily
lock one into any particular solution.
> BTW, I do agree about Social Security.
--
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><You may snip the above, at your leisure. I only include it so you can
>check my understanding.>
Good idea.
>
>Allow me to restate, so I can be sure I understand.
>
>You intend to sign a woman to a contract by which she is not bound.
I don't think "contract" is the right word, although I don't know if I
can come up with a better one. It is an agreement anyway, on the what
will be the best course of action on all conceivable courses of
action, concerning pregnancy and anything else.
A
>contract that she can break at any time (with a little help) after the
>mission actually begins and carries no penalty for non-compliance.
True. All the more reason to send responsible, self disciplined
people. What are we going to do if they do something irresponsible,
sue them or something? It probably won't be necessary or possible:
they will probably be dead.
>
>In the event this contract is broken you intend to scrub the mission
>(except for life saving essenials) and spend the rest of your resourses
>investigating and ascertaining responsibility.
Huh? I intend to find out why our crew selection process went so
horribly, horrendously, ridiculously, drastically wrong. Ideally, I
intend for the situation to never arise in the first place.
>
>Do I understand your position, so far?
Sure doesn't sound like it.
>
>One other question. If the selection process is as good as you say it
>is, why not just select women who are mature enough to decide for
>themselves when it is reasonable to become pregnant?
HUH??? If you are asking this question, then I assure you that you
most definiitely do NOT understand my position in any way, shape,
manner or form.
The above is EXACTLY what I have been advocating ALL ALONG! You have
been describing a situation where the above has suffered an utterly
disastrous failure.
Now you seem to think that if we attempt the above, then fail
disastrously, we should just ignore the failure and not even bother to
review the crew selection process that led to this failure? Not in
any project that I manage.
>
>Sorry, one more. Do you think the colonists, knowing they will be cut
>off, will schedule a vote to authorize children moments after the
>pregnancy becomes known? (Oh, yeah, base. We voted to authorize kids
>and...what a coincidence...Mary just got pregnant.)
I think we will send colonists who will make such a vote unnecessary.
If it does become necessary, it would be a matter of contacting Earth
and telling them that the crew selection process had sufferred a
disastrous failure.
>
>I'm not understanding the motivation behind even considering an
>authorized or unauthorized status for children without being much better
>able to reconcile the freedom of the woman to choose against the
>inability to enforce the contract.
That is the whole point. We CAN'T enforce this alleged contract. We
MUST send people who don't need it enforced. If the selection process
fails so disastrously that we send irresponsible people, it MUST be
fixed so the failure is fixed BEFORE it is repeated.
I think the decision is up to the
>woman, I think the decision has always been up to the woman and I think
>the decision will always be up to the woman
It is also up to the woman whether or not she volunteers to colonize
the moon. If she does volunteer, it is up to the project as a whole
(especially fellow prospective colonists) whether or not she is
accepted.
(barring forcable assault,
>of course). I think trying to monkey with that decision will end up badly.
Agreed. SO SEND PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE. What is your point?
>I trust women enough to allow them to make that decision. Not all will
>choose wisely but the selection process will surely weed out the worst
>cases. In short, I don't even see the need to bring it up.
You are apparently putting forth a case where this selection process
most definitely did NOT weed out the worst.
If we have a competent selection process, I don't see the need to
bring it up either. Why did you do so?
Pete LaGrange
Do you intend to scrub the mission (except for life saving essenials)
as outlined in your previous post? I understand the investigation
portion.
>>One other question. If the selection process is as good as you say it
>>is, why not just select women who are mature enough to decide for
>>themselves when it is reasonable to become pregnant?
>
> HUH??? If you are asking this question, then I assure you that you
> most definiitely do NOT understand my position in any way, shape,
> manner or form.
>
> The above is EXACTLY what I have been advocating ALL ALONG! You have
> been describing a situation where the above has suffered an utterly
> disastrous failure.
No, this is not what you have been advocating. You have been advocating
a system where other colonists will decide when a woman may become
pregnant.
> Now you seem to think that if we attempt the above, then fail
> disastrously, we should just ignore the failure and not even bother to
> review the crew selection process that led to this failure? Not in
> any project that I manage.
No I don't. Of course the selection process should be reviewed, under
/any/ circumstances, even success.
My point is that I think responsible people can be trusted to decide
/for themselves/ as to when it is prudent to concieve children. My point
is that I don't think a committee decision is either necessary or
desireable. My point is that when that committee decision controls
prospective parents' options, I consider that committee to be acting in
an authoritarian manner. You may disagree, the fact that you do does not
make me a liar.
>>I trust women enough to allow them to make that decision. Not all will
>>choose wisely but the selection process will surely weed out the worst
>>cases. In short, I don't even see the need to bring it up.
>
> You are apparently putting forth a case where this selection process
> most definitely did NOT weed out the worst.
You are apparently putting forth a case where this selection process can
be counted on to achieve perfection, months, maybe years down the road.
> If we have a competent selection process, I don't see the need to
> bring it up either. Why did you do so?
I did not, you brought up the issue of "authorized" babies in the post
previously quoted.
In any case, your position, as I understand it now, is to cancel the
mission (except for life saving essenials) without regard as to whether
or not an unauthorized child will have any detrimental effect on the
colony.
What am I missing?
It is my hope that you are beginning to see that any disagreement has
been the result of honest misunderstanding, caused either by your
failure to be clear or my (and others) failure to grasp your meaning. In
either case I would hope that you could admit that no lying took place
and offer the appropriate apologies.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
More massive snippage...
>>>Do I understand your position, so far?
>>
>> Sure doesn't sound like it.
>
>Do you intend to scrub the mission (except for life saving essenials)
>as outlined in your previous post? I understand the investigation
>portion.
No, I used the word "suspend" not scrub. Check it.
>
>>>One other question. If the selection process is as good as you say it
>>>is, why not just select women who are mature enough to decide for
>>>themselves when it is reasonable to become pregnant?
>>
>> HUH??? If you are asking this question, then I assure you that you
>> most definiitely do NOT understand my position in any way, shape,
>> manner or form.
>>
>> The above is EXACTLY what I have been advocating ALL ALONG! You have
>> been describing a situation where the above has suffered an utterly
>> disastrous failure.
>
>No, this is not what you have been advocating.
Do you want to get into a "PPOR, liar" flame war again? Sounds like
it.
You have been advocating
>a system where other colonists will decide when a woman may become
>pregnant.
Actually, did I ever say anything about WHO should do the authorizing?
Maybe a good case can be made that it should be solely the woman doing
the authorizing. Maybe I would even agree to this.
I DO happen to think that there should be some standards, agreed to
bey all, as to exactly what needs to happen for this authorization to
occur. Reasonable assurance of long term colony survival is one that
I think should be on the table. Sufficient development of medical and
other facilities so that pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing will
not negatively affect those survival chances are another one.
Whoever does the authorizing, it should be a formality at most BECAUSE
EVERYONE AGREED AHEAD OF TIME ON THE STANDARDS.
So, now that you know that it is NOT NECESSARILY the other colonists
doing the authorizing, would you care to discuss things on that basis?
Or do you want to go back to flamewar mode?
>
>> Now you seem to think that if we attempt the above, then fail
>> disastrously, we should just ignore the failure and not even bother to
>> review the crew selection process that led to this failure? Not in
>> any project that I manage.
>
>No I don't. Of course the selection process should be reviewed, under
>/any/ circumstances, even success.
Certainly, but after a disastrous failure such as what you have
described, it becomes urgent, before the mistake is repeated.
More snippage..
>> Agreed. SO SEND PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE. What is your point?
>
>My point is that I think responsible people can be trusted to decide
>/for themselves/ as to when it is prudent to concieve children.
So do I. You are positing a situation where we somehow sent someone
irresponsible. I say that this should happen AT MOST once, with a
very strong preference for zero occurrences. I also say that maybe
there should be some discussion long before the first launch, to make
sure everyone is in agreement on pregnancy and a lot of other issues.
My point
>is that I don't think a committee decision is either necessary or
>desireable.
Not if we select the proper crew.
My point is that when that committee decision controls
>prospective parents' options, I consider that committee to be acting in
>an authoritarian manner. You may disagree, the fact that you do does not
>make me a liar.
So don't have a committee decide.
>
>>>I trust women enough to allow them to make that decision. Not all will
>>>choose wisely but the selection process will surely weed out the worst
>>>cases. In short, I don't even see the need to bring it up.
>>
>> You are apparently putting forth a case where this selection process
>> most definitely did NOT weed out the worst.
>
>You are apparently putting forth a case where this selection process can
>be counted on to achieve perfection, months, maybe years down the road.
Actually, by the time we get to years down the road, I can see two
possible scenarios: A successful colony where, like any pioneer
society, children are welcomed, the more the merrier, OR a partially
completed colony full of corpses (and I still prefer that these
corpses be adults who volunteered, not children who were given no
say).
As for months down the road, the selection process had bloody well
better be perfect, or we are all too likely to end with the second of
those scenarios.
>
>> If we have a competent selection process, I don't see the need to
>> bring it up either. Why did you do so?
>
>I did not, you brought up the issue of "authorized" babies in the post
>previously quoted.
Which may or may not have been the best possible word to describe what
I had in mind.
>
>In any case, your position, as I understand it now, is to cancel the
>mission (except for life saving essenials) without regard as to whether
>or not an unauthorized child will have any detrimental effect on the
>colony.
Actually, the child is not the issue. THE ISSUE IS AN UNTRUSTWORTHY
COLONIST. That is FAR more dangerous than any child.
>It is my hope that you are beginning to see that any disagreement has
>been the result of honest misunderstanding, caused either by your
>failure to be clear or my (and others) failure to grasp your meaning. In
>either case I would hope that you could admit that no lying took place
>and offer the appropriate apologies.
When I post over and over and over that I do not favor something,
continuing to claim that I actually do favor it is lying. IMHO, YMMV,
and all that.
Pete LaGrange
You have, just now, over a year after the original post intimated that
it might be the woman who does the authorizing. If this has been your
view all along, then I suggest that you have been derelict with regards
to clraity. No reasonable person can be expected to intuit that a
requirement of authorization may be self-fulfilled. You posted over and
over that you did not favor authoritarianism but you allowed all of us
to believe, until this very day, that it would be the colonists, by
unanimous agreement, who would grant the authorization. It is now clear
that any misunderstanding was caused by your failure to make your
beliefs clear. Again I call upon you to retract your statements as to
lying and make the appropriate apologies, as any man of honor would.
As...@tds.net
I'll think about it, but at this time I am not convinced that I owe
you this, for several reasons:
I don't think any system that is 100% voluntary on the part of all
participants can be authoritarian. It may be a lot of things,
including an Incredibly Bad Idea, but not authoritarian. MULTIPLE
times through all this I have emphasized that EVERYTHING has to be
agreed to by ALL prospective colonists.
But, let's say that we simply cannot get agreement. No matter how we
match people up, some holdout objects to something. Then the Project
Manager, aka God, aka the Tyrant, aka me, lays down the law ex
cathedra from my belly button. Any and all Lunar babies will require
unanimous agreement from both the fellow colonists and from the Lunar
Baby Board here on Earth, with its members appointed by me. Any woman
violating this will be restrained and an involuntary abortion will be
performed. Any woman can still crank out babies at the rate of one
every nine months for as long as she remains fertile. How, you may
ask? By leaving the project, that is how.
For the record, no, I don't think the above would be a very good
policy. But as long as people are free to leave the project at any
time for any reason, I submit to you that authoritarianism CANNOT
apply.
If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
particular reason.
Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
If you are interested, see messages 76 and 78 in the thread at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.heinlein/browse_frm/thread/2bb682bf28873cfc/a8fae695e15693d7?lnk=st&q=perhaps+it+can+be+allowed+fermentation+distillation&rnum=3&hl=en#a8fae695e15693d7
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F574255FB
Also, someone else pointed out a problem. Say the tyrannical project
manager issues the edict: no production or consumption of beverage
alcohol. Then the colonists get there and start partying down on
their homebrew. What is this dictator going to do? Yell at them over
the radio, perhaps?
You point out that it took over a year for me to clarify my position.
Did you happen to notice that this was the FIRST time you or anyone
else pointed to a specific post of mine?!?!?! How the hell can I
clarify something when I have no idea just what it is that I am
clarifying?
But I'll retracting and apologizing, especially if you address the
above.
jeanette
motivated, and extremely self-controlled. Every imaginable situation
and how to handle it will be decided before the colony leaves Earth.
Improvisation will be for those things that could not be anticipated.
The conditions under which children will be welcomed will be decided
before the colony gets underway and the colonists will all know what is
expected. Although unlikely, surprise pregnancy will be an anticipated
event and there will be a plan.
There are many ways to avoid pregnancy and these people are not going to
be the type who feel it is OK to leave the airlock open "just this one
time".
Now this is important. It is not possible for a woman to get pregnant
by herself. There will have to be a man involved (or a sperm bank). I
suggest the men hold the keys to the sperm bank. It will be up to the
men to keep the sperm under wraps. It will take agreement between at
least two people for a pregnancy to occur. It is NOT just up to the
women.
These are intelligent people. They will know having even one child will
impact the colony. I don't believe they will want to have children
until the child would be safe and welcome.
Handling insanity (or rape) is another thing that will have to be
anticipated. If that happens, the colony will have more than a
pregnancy to worry about.
Jeanette
Pete LaGrange
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:45:20 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You have, just now, over a year after the original post intimated that
>>it might be the woman who does the authorizing. If this has been your
>>view all along, then I suggest that you have been derelict with regards
>>to clraity. No reasonable person can be expected to intuit that a
>>requirement of authorization may be self-fulfilled. You posted over and
>>over that you did not favor authoritarianism but you allowed all of us
>>to believe, until this very day, that it would be the colonists, by
>>unanimous agreement, who would grant the authorization. It is now clear
>>that any misunderstanding was caused by your failure to make your
>>beliefs clear. Again I call upon you to retract your statements as to
>>lying and make the appropriate apologies, as any man of honor would.
>
> I'll think about it, but at this time I am not convinced that I owe
> you this, for several reasons:
Me and others. There are many of us who you have called liars, morons
and other things that I don't care to go to the trouble of remembering.
> I don't think any system that is 100% voluntary on the part of all
> participants can be authoritarian. It may be a lot of things,
> including an Incredibly Bad Idea, but not authoritarian. MULTIPLE
> times through all this I have emphasized that EVERYTHING has to be
> agreed to by ALL prospective colonists.
>
> But, let's say that we simply cannot get agreement. No matter how we
> match people up, some holdout objects to something. Then the Project
> Manager, aka God, aka the Tyrant, aka me, lays down the law ex
> cathedra from my belly button. Any and all Lunar babies will require
> unanimous agreement from both the fellow colonists and from the Lunar
> Baby Board here on Earth, with its members appointed by me. Any woman
> violating this will be restrained and an involuntary abortion will be
> performed. Any woman can still crank out babies at the rate of one
> every nine months for as long as she remains fertile. How, you may
> ask? By leaving the project, that is how.
>
> For the record, no, I don't think the above would be a very good
> policy. But as long as people are free to leave the project at any
> time for any reason, I submit to you that authoritarianism CANNOT
> apply.
It can until her ride shows up.
> If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
> system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
> dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
> particular reason.
You've been in the Army, no?
> Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
> the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
> and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
> L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
> want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
> I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
> mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
> do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
> and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
> people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
I concede the former, I'm not sure it makes a difference though. I was
not commenting on things not to be.
The latter seems disingenuous. I can only be expected to react to what
you wrote, not how funny you thought it was. People's sense of humor can
vary considerably. And, with all due respect, what people /should/ have
been doing is not the issue, what was said and who was chastised for it
is the issue, IMO.
> If you are interested, see messages 76 and 78 in the thread at
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.heinlein/browse_frm/thread/2bb682bf28873cfc/a8fae695e15693d7?lnk=st&q=perhaps+it+can+be+allowed+fermentation+distillation&rnum=3&hl=en#a8fae695e15693d7
>
> or
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F574255FB
>
> Also, someone else pointed out a problem. Say the tyrannical project
> manager issues the edict: no production or consumption of beverage
> alcohol. Then the colonists get there and start partying down on
> their homebrew. What is this dictator going to do? Yell at them over
> the radio, perhaps?
>
> You point out that it took over a year for me to clarify my position.
> Did you happen to notice that this was the FIRST time you or anyone
> else pointed to a specific post of mine?!?!?! How the hell can I
> clarify something when I have no idea just what it is that I am
> clarifying?
>
> But I'll retracting and apologizing, especially if you address the
> above.
Let me be clear, I am not expecting you to admit to setting up an
authoritarian state. I do believe, however, that I've made the case
that the misunderstanding that occured was not born of malicious intent
and, therefore, any misstatements should be given the benefit of the
doubt and their originators not be cast in disparaging terms. To that
end, I believe, retractions and apologies to all concerned are in order.
I await your response in a state of utter humility.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As...@tds.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:45:20 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You have, just now, over a year after the original post intimated that
>>>it might be the woman who does the authorizing. If this has been your
>>>view all along, then I suggest that you have been derelict with regards
>>>to clraity. No reasonable person can be expected to intuit that a
>>>requirement of authorization may be self-fulfilled. You posted over and
>>>over that you did not favor authoritarianism but you allowed all of us
>>>to believe, until this very day, that it would be the colonists, by
>>>unanimous agreement, who would grant the authorization. It is now clear
>>>that any misunderstanding was caused by your failure to make your
>>>beliefs clear. Again I call upon you to retract your statements as to
>>>lying and make the appropriate apologies, as any man of honor would.
>>
>> I'll think about it, but at this time I am not convinced that I owe
>> you this, for several reasons:
>
>Me and others. There are many of us who you have called liars, morons
>and other things that I don't care to go to the trouble of remembering.
Once again, another thing I have emphasized quite a few times is that
if a person asserts, over and over and over, that they do not believe
something, then continuing to assert that they actually do believe is
LYING. Quoting a post where you think the person made a certain
assertion is...quoting a post where you think the person made a
certain assertion.
If a person asserts over and over and over that he does not believe a
certain thing, and another asserts that yes, he does believe, and a
third party decides that, yes, the person who denies believing
something does in fact believe what he denies believing, then this
person has to be a liar himself, and/or a gullible moron. Quoting a
post where that person thinks you did assert the alleged belief
is...quoting a a post where that person thinks you did assert the
alleged belief.
>
>> I don't think any system that is 100% voluntary on the part of all
>> participants can be authoritarian. It may be a lot of things,
>> including an Incredibly Bad Idea, but not authoritarian. MULTIPLE
>> times through all this I have emphasized that EVERYTHING has to be
>> agreed to by ALL prospective colonists.
>>
>> But, let's say that we simply cannot get agreement. No matter how we
>> match people up, some holdout objects to something. Then the Project
>> Manager, aka God, aka the Tyrant, aka me, lays down the law ex
>> cathedra from my belly button. Any and all Lunar babies will require
>> unanimous agreement from both the fellow colonists and from the Lunar
>> Baby Board here on Earth, with its members appointed by me. Any woman
>> violating this will be restrained and an involuntary abortion will be
>> performed. Any woman can still crank out babies at the rate of one
>> every nine months for as long as she remains fertile. How, you may
>> ask? By leaving the project, that is how.
>>
>> For the record, no, I don't think the above would be a very good
>> policy. But as long as people are free to leave the project at any
>> time for any reason, I submit to you that authoritarianism CANNOT
>> apply.
>
>It can until her ride shows up.
Ok, we make sure that taxi service is available wherever we set up
training and simulation.
>
>> If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
>> system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
>> dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
>> particular reason.
>
>You've been in the Army, no?
Yes, but I don't know what you are getting at?
>
>> Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
>> the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
>> and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
>> L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
>> want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
>> I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
>> mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
>> do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
>> and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
>> people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
>
>I concede the former, I'm not sure it makes a difference though. I was
>not commenting on things not to be.
"I was not commenting on things not to be." I'm sorry, but that one
flew totally over my head. Care to elaborate?
>
>The latter seems disingenuous. I can only be expected to react to what
>you wrote, not how funny you thought it was. People's sense of humor can
>vary considerably. And, with all due respect, what people /should/ have
>been doing is not the issue, what was said and who was chastised for it
>is the issue, IMO.
What was said included the word "perhaps." And if you looked at it,
you may have noticed that I was only going to prohibit alcohol up
until the time they started to produce it. That is either (a)
humorous or (b) ridiculous (or maybe (c) both). In any case the
prohibition was ONLY on consumption, not on production, or equipment
needed for production, AND was qualified with that "perhaps" AND would
only continue until production commenced.
Yeah, I'll prohibit alcohol consumption until it is physically
possible to do so. I must be Adolf Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Nero,
Caligula, and Ivan the Terrible all rolled into one, if I will only
allow consumption of alcohol after it has been produced.
In any case, STATING THAT I DID NOT WANT TO PROHIBIT ALCOHOL
PRODUCTION OR CONSUMPTION SHOULD HAVE ENDED THE DISCUSSION (unless
someone wanted to quote a post that could have been misinterpreted. )
CONTINUING TO STATE THAT I WANTED TO PROHIBIT PRODUCTION AND/OR
CONSUMPTION WAS LYING AFTER I MADE THAT STATEMENT.
>
>> If you are interested, see messages 76 and 78 in the thread at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.heinlein/browse_frm/thread/2bb682bf28873cfc/a8fae695e15693d7?lnk=st&q=perhaps+it+can+be+allowed+fermentation+distillation&rnum=3&hl=en#a8fae695e15693d7
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F574255FB
>>
>> Also, someone else pointed out a problem. Say the tyrannical project
>> manager issues the edict: no production or consumption of beverage
>> alcohol. Then the colonists get there and start partying down on
>> their homebrew. What is this dictator going to do? Yell at them over
>> the radio, perhaps?
>>
>> You point out that it took over a year for me to clarify my position.
>> Did you happen to notice that this was the FIRST time you or anyone
>> else pointed to a specific post of mine?!?!?! How the hell can I
>> clarify something when I have no idea just what it is that I am
>> clarifying?
>>
>> But I'll retracting and apologizing, especially if you address the
>> above.
Should have included a "consider" in that. I hope it was still
understandable.
>
>Let me be clear, I am not expecting you to admit to setting up an
>authoritarian state. I do believe, however, that I've made the case
>that the misunderstanding that occured was not born of malicious intent
Maybe not "born of malicious intent." AFTER I attempted multiple
times to correct the misinterpretation, and you and others kept right
on making the fraudulent claims, I still have trouble ascribing it to
anything but malicious intent. If you have an alternate theory
though, state it.
>and, therefore, any misstatements should be given the benefit of the
>doubt
The first time they are made, certainly.
and their originators not be cast in disparaging terms. To that
>end, I believe, retractions and apologies to all concerned are in order.
For anyone who made ONE (1) statement that I wanted an authoritarian
administration, and/or that I wanted to prohibit alcohol production
and/or consumption, you have my humble apologies if I inadvertently
called you a liar and/or a gullible moron. For those who kept right
on making the fraudulent claims after I made multiple and vehement
denials that I believed these things...I am still considering.
>
>I await your response in a state of utter humility.
You have it. Make of it what you will.
Pete LaGrange
No one, to my knowledge, has asserted that he/she knew what you believed,
I know I did not. We were all replying to the tings you /said/.
>>> I don't think any system that is 100% voluntary on the part of all
>>> participants can be authoritarian. It may be a lot of things,
>>> including an Incredibly Bad Idea, but not authoritarian. MULTIPLE
>>> times through all this I have emphasized that EVERYTHING has to be
>>> agreed to by ALL prospective colonists.
>>>
>>> But, let's say that we simply cannot get agreement. No matter how we
>>> match people up, some holdout objects to something. Then the Project
>>> Manager, aka God, aka the Tyrant, aka me, lays down the law ex
>>> cathedra from my belly button. Any and all Lunar babies will require
>>> unanimous agreement from both the fellow colonists and from the Lunar
>>> Baby Board here on Earth, with its members appointed by me. Any woman
>>> violating this will be restrained and an involuntary abortion will be
>>> performed. Any woman can still crank out babies at the rate of one
>>> every nine months for as long as she remains fertile. How, you may
>>> ask? By leaving the project, that is how.
>>>
>>> For the record, no, I don't think the above would be a very good
>>> policy. But as long as people are free to leave the project at any
>>> time for any reason, I submit to you that authoritarianism CANNOT
>>> apply.
>>
>>It can until her ride shows up.
>
> Ok, we make sure that taxi service is available wherever we set up
> training and simulation.
What about those 250,000 miles from the nearest taxi stand?
>>> If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
>>> system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
>>> dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
>>> particular reason.
>>
>>You've been in the Army, no?
>
> Yes, but I don't know what you are getting at?
100% voluntary, 100% authoritarian.
>>> Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
>>> the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
>>> and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
>>> L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
>>> want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
>>> I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
>>> mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
>>> do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
>>> and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
>>> people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
>>
>>I concede the former, I'm not sure it makes a difference though. I was
>>not commenting on things not to be.
>
> "I was not commenting on things not to be." I'm sorry, but that one
> flew totally over my head. Care to elaborate?
If the decision was to be "perhaps...not" I obviously would have no
problem with it, it was the "perhaps...yes" scenario that concerned me.
>>The latter seems disingenuous. I can only be expected to react to what
>>you wrote, not how funny you thought it was. People's sense of humor can
>>vary considerably. And, with all due respect, what people /should/ have
>>been doing is not the issue, what was said and who was chastised for it
>>is the issue, IMO.
>
> What was said included the word "perhaps." And if you looked at it,
> you may have noticed that I was only going to prohibit alcohol up
> until the time they started to produce it. That is either (a)
> humorous or (b) ridiculous (or maybe (c) both). In any case the
> prohibition was ONLY on consumption, not on production, or equipment
> needed for production, AND was qualified with that "perhaps" AND would
> only continue until production commenced.
I agree that it is ridiculous, you did not present it in that light,
IMO.
I assumed you left off a "be" but "consider" makes sense too.
>>Let me be clear, I am not expecting you to admit to setting up an
>>authoritarian state. I do believe, however, that I've made the case
>>that the misunderstanding that occured was not born of malicious intent
>
> Maybe not "born of malicious intent." AFTER I attempted multiple
> times to correct the misinterpretation, and you and others kept right
> on making the fraudulent claims, I still have trouble ascribing it to
> anything but malicious intent. If you have an alternate theory
> though, state it.
But don't you understand, you tried to "correct" it by denying you ever
said it. If you had said "I made a mistake, Pete and David are not
liars, here is the correction" do you really think we would still be
talking about this?
>>and, therefore, any misstatements should be given the benefit of the
>>doubt
>
> The first time they are made, certainly.
Each and every time they are made, if they are made to correct a
factually incorect response, no?
> and their originators not be cast in disparaging terms. To that
>>end, I believe, retractions and apologies to all concerned are in order.
>
> For anyone who made ONE (1) statement that I wanted an authoritarian
> administration, and/or that I wanted to prohibit alcohol production
> and/or consumption, you have my humble apologies if I inadvertently
> called you a liar and/or a gullible moron. For those who kept right
> on making the fraudulent claims after I made multiple and vehement
> denials that I believed these things...I am still considering.
>
>>
>>I await your response in a state of utter humility.
>
> You have it. Make of it what you will.
Progress, as funny as that may seem.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If a person asserts over and over and over that he does not believe a
>> certain thing, and another asserts that yes, he does believe, and a
>> third party decides that, yes, the person who denies believing
>> something does in fact believe what he denies believing, then this
>> person has to be a liar himself, and/or a gullible moron. Quoting a
>> post where that person thinks you did assert the alleged belief
>> is...quoting a a post where that person thinks you did assert the
>> alleged belief.
>
>No one, to my knowledge, has asserted that he/she knew what you believed,
>I know I did not. We were all replying to the tings you /said/.
Oh, so someone hacked your account and posted the "forbidden
equipment" and "allowable pregnancy" comments earlier in this thread.
Is that your assertion?
>> Ok, we make sure that taxi service is available wherever we set up
>> training and simulation.
>
>What about those 250,000 miles from the nearest taxi stand?
Oh good grief, ANOTHER disastrous failure in the selection
process?!?!?! Well, if we somehow manage to send someone who gets
cold feet 250,000 miles from home, see my response concerning someone
who faked their views on when to have children.
What kind of blithering idiots do you think will be making these
selection mistakes, anyway?
>
>>>> If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
>>>> system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
>>>> dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
>>>> particular reason.
>>>
>>>You've been in the Army, no?
>>
>> Yes, but I don't know what you are getting at?
>
>100% voluntary, 100% authoritarian.
I would be interested in any sort of support for this position, such
as an entry from an online dictionary.
>
>>>> Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
>>>> the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
>>>> and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
>>>> L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
>>>> want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
>>>> I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
>>>> mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
>>>> do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
>>>> and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
>>>> people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
>>>
>>>I concede the former, I'm not sure it makes a difference though. I was
>>>not commenting on things not to be.
>>
>> "I was not commenting on things not to be." I'm sorry, but that one
>> flew totally over my head. Care to elaborate?
>
>If the decision was to be "perhaps...not" I obviously would have no
>problem with it, it was the "perhaps...yes" scenario that concerned me.
Oh, so prohibing alcohol consumption until such time as it is
physically possible to consume it concerns you. Why?
>
>>>The latter seems disingenuous. I can only be expected to react to what
>>>you wrote, not how funny you thought it was. People's sense of humor can
>>>vary considerably. And, with all due respect, what people /should/ have
>>>been doing is not the issue, what was said and who was chastised for it
>>>is the issue, IMO.
>>
>> What was said included the word "perhaps." And if you looked at it,
>> you may have noticed that I was only going to prohibit alcohol up
>> until the time they started to produce it. That is either (a)
>> humorous or (b) ridiculous (or maybe (c) both). In any case the
>> prohibition was ONLY on consumption, not on production, or equipment
>> needed for production, AND was qualified with that "perhaps" AND would
>> only continue until production commenced.
>
>I agree that it is ridiculous, you did not present it in that light,
>IMO.
Ok, what light did I present it in?
>> Maybe not "born of malicious intent." AFTER I attempted multiple
>> times to correct the misinterpretation, and you and others kept right
>> on making the fraudulent claims, I still have trouble ascribing it to
>> anything but malicious intent. If you have an alternate theory
>> though, state it.
>
>But don't you understand, you tried to "correct" it by denying you ever
>said it. If you had said "I made a mistake, Pete and David are not
>liars, here is the correction" do you really think we would still be
>talking about this?
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S5A6266FB
was my first (but FAR from only) attempt to straighten this out. You
and Silver ignored this and all other attempts, and kept right on
fraudulently claiming that I wanted to prohibit things which, in fact,
I did not favor prohibiting. (I will admit that this exchange was not
all that clear as to how I meant to implement any standards as to when
children should happen, just that I thought there should be standards.
In all honesty, at that time I had given very little thought as to
just how they might be implemented. You MIGHT have tried asking me
that. Nah, just make things up, right?)
So, I TRIED what you just suggested. It did not work then. Why do
you think one more attempt would have accomplished anything that
previous attempts did not?
>
>>>and, therefore, any misstatements should be given the benefit of the
>>>doubt
>>
>> The first time they are made, certainly.
>
>Each and every time they are made, if they are made to correct a
>factually incorect response, no?
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. What I am getting at
is that I made numerous and vehement statements that I did not want
what you and Silver claimed. You both ignored these statements, and
kept right on repeating your fraudulent claims. I still say this was
lying, no matter what the cause of the initial misstatements.
Pete LaGrange
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:48:57 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If a person asserts over and over and over that he does not believe a
>>> certain thing, and another asserts that yes, he does believe, and a
>>> third party decides that, yes, the person who denies believing
>>> something does in fact believe what he denies believing, then this
>>> person has to be a liar himself, and/or a gullible moron. Quoting a
>>> post where that person thinks you did assert the alleged belief
>>> is...quoting a a post where that person thinks you did assert the
>>> alleged belief.
>>
>>No one, to my knowledge, has asserted that he/she knew what you believed,
>>I know I did not. We were all replying to the tings you /said/.
>
> Oh, so someone hacked your account and posted the "forbidden
> equipment" and "allowable pregnancy" comments earlier in this thread.
> Is that your assertion?
No and I stand by the statement.
We have already disposed of the "authorized" (allowable) pregnancy bit.
Even if it drives you to make the fantastic claim that the woman might
be the one to "authorize" (allow) the pregnancy. How could that be
otherwise? We weren't planning on sending rapists, were we?
As to the "forbidden equipment" you clearly state, on Mar 8 2004, at
5:00 pm
"We send them no assistance when it comes to alcohol production;
they are on their own."
IMO, a reasonable person would conclude that "no assistance" includes
equipment.
>>> Ok, we make sure that taxi service is available wherever we set up
>>> training and simulation.
>>
>>What about those 250,000 miles from the nearest taxi stand?
>
> Oh good grief, ANOTHER disastrous failure in the selection
> process?!?!?! Well, if we somehow manage to send someone who gets
> cold feet 250,000 miles from home, see my response concerning someone
> who faked their views on when to have children.
>
> What kind of blithering idiots do you think will be making these
> selection mistakes, anyway?
As I have stated before, I am not concerned with the perfect functioning
of the system. Only a fool would expect things to go exactly as planned.
I am addressing the proceedures in the case of non-fatal failure and the
remedies for same. Why do you continue to misunderstand this? Is it
intentional?
>>>>> If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
>>>>> system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
>>>>> dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
>>>>> particular reason.
>>>>
>>>>You've been in the Army, no?
>>>
>>> Yes, but I don't know what you are getting at?
>>
>>100% voluntary, 100% authoritarian.
>
> I would be interested in any sort of support for this position, such
> as an entry from an online dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voluntary
"undertaken of one's own free will"
The US Army, IOW.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
"expecting unquestioning obedience"
Again the US Army.
Clear now?
>>>>> Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
>>>>> the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
>>>>> and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
>>>>> L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
>>>>> want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
>>>>> I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
>>>>> mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
>>>>> do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
>>>>> and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
>>>>> people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>I concede the former, I'm not sure it makes a difference though. I was
>>>>not commenting on things not to be.
>>>
>>> "I was not commenting on things not to be." I'm sorry, but that one
>>> flew totally over my head. Care to elaborate?
>>
>>If the decision was to be "perhaps...not" I obviously would have no
>>problem with it, it was the "perhaps...yes" scenario that concerned me.
>
> Oh, so prohibing alcohol consumption until such time as it is
> physically possible to consume it concerns you. Why?
Because it is childish and foolish and stupid to make a rule just for
the rule's sake. A mission as important and dangerous and expensive has
no room for any of those things, even in jest.
>>>>The latter seems disingenuous. I can only be expected to react to what
>>>>you wrote, not how funny you thought it was. People's sense of humor can
>>>>vary considerably. And, with all due respect, what people /should/ have
>>>>been doing is not the issue, what was said and who was chastised for it
>>>>is the issue, IMO.
>>>
>>> What was said included the word "perhaps." And if you looked at it,
>>> you may have noticed that I was only going to prohibit alcohol up
>>> until the time they started to produce it. That is either (a)
>>> humorous or (b) ridiculous (or maybe (c) both). In any case the
>>> prohibition was ONLY on consumption, not on production, or equipment
>>> needed for production, AND was qualified with that "perhaps" AND would
>>> only continue until production commenced.
>>
>>I agree that it is ridiculous, you did not present it in that light,
>>IMO.
>
> Ok, what light did I present it in?
/IMO/, it seemed a totally serious proposal.
>>> Maybe not "born of malicious intent." AFTER I attempted multiple
>>> times to correct the misinterpretation, and you and others kept right
>>> on making the fraudulent claims, I still have trouble ascribing it to
>>> anything but malicious intent. If you have an alternate theory
>>> though, state it.
>>
>>But don't you understand, you tried to "correct" it by denying you ever
>>said it. If you had said "I made a mistake, Pete and David are not
>>liars, here is the correction" do you really think we would still be
>>talking about this?
>
> Our exchange at
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.heinlein/browse_frm/thread/98f7540456d471a9/d729b96042fa3014?lnk=st&q=alt.fan.heinlein+pete+lagrange+lunar&rnum=3&hl=en#d729b96042fa3014
>
> or
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?S5A6266FB
>
> was my first (but FAR from only) attempt to straighten this out. You
> and Silver ignored this and all other attempts, and kept right on
> fraudulently claiming that I wanted to prohibit things which, in fact,
> I did not favor prohibiting.
No, I, and I will not speak for David, kept right on legitimately
claming that you had said these things, as I do now. I made no claim as
to what was actually going on in your head, nor do I now. To do so would
be insane. Even a statement such as "LV thinks such and so" is
understood, by reasonable persons, to indicate "LV /says/ he thinks such
and so."
> (I will admit that this exchange was not
> all that clear as to how I meant to implement any standards as to when
> children should happen, just that I thought there should be standards.
> In all honesty, at that time I had given very little thought as to
> just how they might be implemented. You MIGHT have tried asking me
> that. Nah, just make things up, right?)
I made up nothing, I comment on what you /said/. Will you, please,
understand this?
> So, I TRIED what you just suggested. It did not work then. Why do
> you think one more attempt would have accomplished anything that
> previous attempts did not?
Why don't you go back and read that post, above and count how many
times I said "I think" or "I find it" or "I feel" and then tell me how I
could possibly be lying about what I think.
>>>>and, therefore, any misstatements should be given the benefit of the
>>>>doubt
>>>
>>> The first time they are made, certainly.
>>
>>Each and every time they are made, if they are made to correct a
>>factually incorect response, no?
>
> I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. What I am getting at
> is that I made numerous and vehement statements that I did not want
> what you and Silver claimed. You both ignored these statements, and
> kept right on repeating your fraudulent claims. I still say this was
> lying, no matter what the cause of the initial misstatements.
Again, I never made any claims about what you wanted, that is a matter
between the two hemispheres of your brain, I was merely commenting on
what you said. Furthermore, I characterized many (if not all) of my
comments as my /opinion/, surely you can not ascertain whether I am
lying about /that/.
I feel that I have been, completely and without reservation, vindicated
in this matter and I again I call upon you to issue the appropriate
retractions and apologies.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As...@tds.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:48:57 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> If a person asserts over and over and over that he does not believe a
>>>> certain thing, and another asserts that yes, he does believe, and a
>>>> third party decides that, yes, the person who denies believing
>>>> something does in fact believe what he denies believing, then this
>>>> person has to be a liar himself, and/or a gullible moron. Quoting a
>>>> post where that person thinks you did assert the alleged belief
>>>> is...quoting a a post where that person thinks you did assert the
>>>> alleged belief.
>>>
>>>No one, to my knowledge, has asserted that he/she knew what you believed,
>>>I know I did not. We were all replying to the tings you /said/.
>>
>> Oh, so someone hacked your account and posted the "forbidden
>> equipment" and "allowable pregnancy" comments earlier in this thread.
>> Is that your assertion?
>
>No and I stand by the statement.
>
>We have already disposed of the "authorized" (allowable) pregnancy bit.
>Even if it drives you to make the fantastic claim that the woman might
>be the one to "authorize" (allow) the pregnancy.
Actually it drove me to make the not so fantastic claim that maybe
"authorize" was not the best possible word for what I intended, along
with an equally non fantastic claim that I really had not given all
that much thought until now on implementation of whatever standards
were set.
How could that be
>otherwise? We weren't planning on sending rapists, were we?
No, although I still think all colonists should agree ahead of time as
to when children will be a good idea.
>
>As to the "forbidden equipment" you clearly state, on Mar 8 2004, at
>5:00 pm
>
>"We send them no assistance when it comes to alcohol production;
>they are on their own."
>
>IMO, a reasonable person would conclude that "no assistance" includes
>equipment.
???
You don't need to conclude a damn thing. I stated multiple times that
I did not consider it necessary or desirable to send equipment solely
for the production of beverage alcohol. If you disagree, care to
explain why?
Yeah, I think it was Howard Berkowitz who took me to task on what you
quoted, pointing out that various types of alcohol have medical and
other uses. That caused me to change "alcohol" to "beverage alcohol."
>
>>>> Ok, we make sure that taxi service is available wherever we set up
>>>> training and simulation.
>>>
>>>What about those 250,000 miles from the nearest taxi stand?
>>
>> Oh good grief, ANOTHER disastrous failure in the selection
>> process?!?!?! Well, if we somehow manage to send someone who gets
>> cold feet 250,000 miles from home, see my response concerning someone
>> who faked their views on when to have children.
>>
>> What kind of blithering idiots do you think will be making these
>> selection mistakes, anyway?
>
>As I have stated before, I am not concerned with the perfect functioning
>of the system.
We are dealing with human beings, so perfect functioning is not going
to happen. Minimal competence can happen though, and that is all that
is needed to prevent the problems you have been bringing up.
Only a fool would expect things to go exactly as planned.
>I am addressing the proceedures in the case of non-fatal failure and the
>remedies for same. Why do you continue to misunderstand this? Is it
>intentional?
I think it might be more fruitful to discuss failures that will happen
even if our selection process is run by people with IQs somewhat in
excess of their shoe sizes.
How about
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Ice_Bound_Doctor_Beats_Breast_Cancer.asp
THAT is something that might actually come up.
>
>>>>>> If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
>>>>>> system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
>>>>>> dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
>>>>>> particular reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>You've been in the Army, no?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but I don't know what you are getting at?
>>>
>>>100% voluntary, 100% authoritarian.
>>
>> I would be interested in any sort of support for this position, such
>> as an entry from an online dictionary.
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voluntary
>"undertaken of one's own free will"
>The US Army, IOW.
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
>"expecting unquestioning obedience"
>Again the US Army.
>
>Clear now?
No. Say someone does not volunteer for the Army. What will they have
to obey?
>
>>>>>> Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
>>>>>> the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
>>>>>> and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
>>>>>> L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
>>>>>> want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
>>>>>> I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
>>>>>> mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
>>>>>> do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
>>>>>> and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
>>>>>> people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
>>>>>
>>>>>I concede the former, I'm not sure it makes a difference though. I was
>>>>>not commenting on things not to be.
>>>>
>>>> "I was not commenting on things not to be." I'm sorry, but that one
>>>> flew totally over my head. Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>>If the decision was to be "perhaps...not" I obviously would have no
>>>problem with it, it was the "perhaps...yes" scenario that concerned me.
>>
>> Oh, so prohibing alcohol consumption until such time as it is
>> physically possible to consume it concerns you. Why?
>
>Because it is childish and foolish and stupid to make a rule just for
>the rule's sake. A mission as important and dangerous and expensive has
>no room for any of those things, even in jest.
Ok, a valid criticism, even if you missed my (perhaps lame) attempt at
humor. Why didn't you make it?
>
>>>>>The latter seems disingenuous. I can only be expected to react to what
>>>>>you wrote, not how funny you thought it was. People's sense of humor can
>>>>>vary considerably. And, with all due respect, what people /should/ have
>>>>>been doing is not the issue, what was said and who was chastised for it
>>>>>is the issue, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> What was said included the word "perhaps." And if you looked at it,
>>>> you may have noticed that I was only going to prohibit alcohol up
>>>> until the time they started to produce it. That is either (a)
>>>> humorous or (b) ridiculous (or maybe (c) both). In any case the
>>>> prohibition was ONLY on consumption, not on production, or equipment
>>>> needed for production, AND was qualified with that "perhaps" AND would
>>>> only continue until production commenced.
>>>
>>>I agree that it is ridiculous, you did not present it in that light,
>>>IMO.
>>
>> Ok, what light did I present it in?
>
>/IMO/, it seemed a totally serious proposal.
Qualified with a "perhaps."
Oh really? Let's take a look...
"Orders from on high concerning procreation." Your words. WHERE THE
HELL DID I MENTION ANY ORDERS, FROM ON HIGH OR ANYWHERE ELSE?
In another post in the thread you said "If all we're gonna
have is another episode of "Gov't knows best" we might as well stay
home. " WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT
GOVERNMENT?
I'm willing to look at whatever you quote, but it looks to me like
these were made up out of thin air.
>
>> So, I TRIED what you just suggested. It did not work then. Why do
>> you think one more attempt would have accomplished anything that
>> previous attempts did not?
>
>Why don't you go back and read that post, above and count how many
>times I said "I think" or "I find it" or "I feel" and then tell me how I
>could possibly be lying about what I think.
Pardon me if I find this a little disingenuous.
>
>>>>>and, therefore, any misstatements should be given the benefit of the
>>>>>doubt
>>>>
>>>> The first time they are made, certainly.
>>>
>>>Each and every time they are made, if they are made to correct a
>>>factually incorect response, no?
>>
>> I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. What I am getting at
>> is that I made numerous and vehement statements that I did not want
>> what you and Silver claimed. You both ignored these statements, and
>> kept right on repeating your fraudulent claims. I still say this was
>> lying, no matter what the cause of the initial misstatements.
>
>Again, I never made any claims about what you wanted, that is a matter
>between the two hemispheres of your brain, I was merely commenting on
>what you said.
And doing so incorrectly in many cases.
Furthermore, I characterized many (if not all) of my
>comments as my /opinion/, surely you can not ascertain whether I am
>lying about /that/.
>
>I feel that I have been, completely and without reservation, vindicated
>in this matter and I again I call upon you to issue the appropriate
>retractions and apologies.
Yeah, well, you have not convinced me.
As...@tds.net
>Here is what I think. The colonists are going to be intelligent, highly
>motivated, and extremely self-controlled. Every imaginable situation
>and how to handle it will be decided before the colony leaves Earth.
>Improvisation will be for those things that could not be anticipated.
>The conditions under which children will be welcomed will be decided
>before the colony gets underway and the colonists will all know what is
>expected. Although unlikely, surprise pregnancy will be an anticipated
>event and there will be a plan.
Now THAT has to be one of the best summaries of all time.
>
>There are many ways to avoid pregnancy and these people are not going to
>be the type who feel it is OK to leave the airlock open "just this one
>time".
>
>Now this is important. It is not possible for a woman to get pregnant
>by herself. There will have to be a man involved (or a sperm bank). I
>suggest the men hold the keys to the sperm bank. It will be up to the
>men to keep the sperm under wraps. It will take agreement between at
>least two people for a pregnancy to occur. It is NOT just up to the
>women.
Agreed, although I don't know about the sperm bank. We might send one
at some point, but I am guessing that it will be after pregnancies
start occurring naturally. The first launches will have to
concentrate on short term survival, not long term goals such as a
genetically diverse population.
>
>These are intelligent people. They will know having even one child will
>impact the colony. I don't believe they will want to have children
>until the child would be safe and welcome.
Precisely.
>
>Handling insanity (or rape) is another thing that will have to be
>anticipated. If that happens, the colony will have more than a
>pregnancy to worry about.
These are other things that competent crew selection on Earth should
prevent. Insanity that sets in after the mission is
underway...definitely something to be discussed ahead of time,
although the solution will depend on the exact nature of the insanity.
Pete LaGrange
Did you not, just yesterday, write this?
"Actually, did I ever say anything about WHO should do the authorizing?
Maybe a good case can be made that it should be solely the woman doing
the authorizing. Maybe I would even agree to this."
> How could that be
>>otherwise? We weren't planning on sending rapists, were we?
>
> No, although I still think all colonists should agree ahead of time as
> to when children will be a good idea.
>
>>
>>As to the "forbidden equipment" you clearly state, on Mar 8 2004, at
>>5:00 pm
>>
>>"We send them no assistance when it comes to alcohol production;
>>they are on their own."
>>
>>IMO, a reasonable person would conclude that "no assistance" includes
>>equipment.
>
> ???
>
> You don't need to conclude a damn thing. I stated multiple times that
> I did not consider it necessary or desirable to send equipment solely
> for the production of beverage alcohol. If you disagree, care to
> explain why?
>
> Yeah, I think it was Howard Berkowitz who took me to task on what you
> quoted, pointing out that various types of alcohol have medical and
> other uses. That caused me to change "alcohol" to "beverage alcohol."
Yes, and Howard commented because you originally stated that you would
not send a still. That is what I have been commenting on and what you
have been calling me names over.
>>>>> Ok, we make sure that taxi service is available wherever we set up
>>>>> training and simulation.
>>>>
>>>>What about those 250,000 miles from the nearest taxi stand?
>>>
>>> Oh good grief, ANOTHER disastrous failure in the selection
>>> process?!?!?! Well, if we somehow manage to send someone who gets
>>> cold feet 250,000 miles from home, see my response concerning someone
>>> who faked their views on when to have children.
>>>
>>> What kind of blithering idiots do you think will be making these
>>> selection mistakes, anyway?
>>
>>As I have stated before, I am not concerned with the perfect functioning
>>of the system.
>
> We are dealing with human beings, so perfect functioning is not going
> to happen. Minimal competence can happen though, and that is all that
> is needed to prevent the problems you have been bringing up.
Your powers allow you to discern which problems will arise and
which won't?
> Only a fool would expect things to go exactly as planned.
>>I am addressing the proceedures in the case of non-fatal failure and the
>>remedies for same. Why do you continue to misunderstand this? Is it
>>intentional?
>
> I think it might be more fruitful to discuss failures that will happen
> even if our selection process is run by people with IQs somewhat in
> excess of their shoe sizes.
>
> How about
> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Ice_Bound_Doctor_Beats_Breast_Cancer.asp
>
> THAT is something that might actually come up.
I'd be happy to discuss such things, once you retract your statements
and make whatever apologies you deem apropriate, in accordance with a
good-faith discussion.
>>>>>>> If you can show me some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary
>>>>>>> system can still be authoritarian (such as a definition from an online
>>>>>>> dictionary) OR admit that you misused the term, I will withdraw this
>>>>>>> particular reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You've been in the Army, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but I don't know what you are getting at?
>>>>
>>>>100% voluntary, 100% authoritarian.
>>>
>>> I would be interested in any sort of support for this position, such
>>> as an entry from an online dictionary.
>>
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voluntary
>>"undertaken of one's own free will"
>>The US Army, IOW.
>>
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian
>>"expecting unquestioning obedience"
>>Again the US Army.
>>
>>Clear now?
>
> No. Say someone does not volunteer for the Army. What will they have
> to obey?
You asked for "some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary system can
still be authoritarian." I gave you an example of a 100% voluntary, 100%
authoritarian system. Now you want me to show...what? How a non-volunteer
can be oppressed by a system that they don't participate in? Are you
baiting me?
>>>>>>> Remember that this is not the only dispute. The last you weighed in
>>>>>>> the other one you made the...ummm...statement...that I wanted to allow
>>>>>>> and prohibit certain items of equipment. I will refrain from the
>>>>>>> L-word AT THIS TIME. However, I have denied multiple times that I
>>>>>>> want to prohibit any item of equipment whatsoever. I still deny it.
>>>>>>> I have also requested multiple times that anyone point out any post of
>>>>>>> mine that could be interpreted this way. The best anyone was able to
>>>>>>> do was to point out one where (a) I began it with the word "perhaps"
>>>>>>> and (b) I meant it humorously. Even if the humor was not apparent,
>>>>>>> people should have been pointing out that I was being ridiculous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I concede the former, I'm not sure it makes a difference though. I was
>>>>>>not commenting on things not to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I was not commenting on things not to be." I'm sorry, but that one
>>>>> flew totally over my head. Care to elaborate?
>>>>
>>>>If the decision was to be "perhaps...not" I obviously would have no
>>>>problem with it, it was the "perhaps...yes" scenario that concerned me.
>>>
>>> Oh, so prohibing alcohol consumption until such time as it is
>>> physically possible to consume it concerns you. Why?
>>
>>Because it is childish and foolish and stupid to make a rule just for
>>the rule's sake. A mission as important and dangerous and expensive has
>>no room for any of those things, even in jest.
>
> Ok, a valid criticism, even if you missed my (perhaps lame) attempt at
> humor. Why didn't you make it?
Because you didn't present it as such, you presented it as a real rule
with real consequences.
>>>>>>The latter seems disingenuous. I can only be expected to react to what
>>>>>>you wrote, not how funny you thought it was. People's sense of humor can
>>>>>>vary considerably. And, with all due respect, what people /should/ have
>>>>>>been doing is not the issue, what was said and who was chastised for it
>>>>>>is the issue, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was said included the word "perhaps." And if you looked at it,
>>>>> you may have noticed that I was only going to prohibit alcohol up
>>>>> until the time they started to produce it. That is either (a)
>>>>> humorous or (b) ridiculous (or maybe (c) both). In any case the
>>>>> prohibition was ONLY on consumption, not on production, or equipment
>>>>> needed for production, AND was qualified with that "perhaps" AND would
>>>>> only continue until production commenced.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that it is ridiculous, you did not present it in that light,
>>>>IMO.
>>>
>>> Ok, what light did I present it in?
>>
>>/IMO/, it seemed a totally serious proposal.
>
> Qualified with a "perhaps."
And as I've already stated, I have no interest or motive to comment on
things that are not going to happen. I was commenting on the possibility
that the things you were proposing were seriously proposed and seriously
considered.
Why don't you quote it all?
"I do take issue with the orders from on high about procreation and
I think much of the tone of your proposal smacks of paternalism.
I /do/ take issue with orders from on high about procreation, the fact
that you were unclear about what you meant can hardly be laid at my
feet.
> In another post in the thread you said "If all we're gonna
> have is another episode of "Gov't knows best" we might as well stay
> home. " WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT
> GOVERNMENT?
Read that statement again and
a) show me where it says /anything/ about what you said and
b) explain how a rule making committee is not government in everything
but name.
> I'm willing to look at whatever you quote, but it looks to me like
> these were made up out of thin air.
>
>>
>>> So, I TRIED what you just suggested. It did not work then. Why do
>>> you think one more attempt would have accomplished anything that
>>> previous attempts did not?
>>
>>Why don't you go back and read that post, above and count how many
>>times I said "I think" or "I find it" or "I feel" and then tell me how I
>>could possibly be lying about what I think.
>
> Pardon me if I find this a little disingenuous.
You do? Am I not entitled to an opinion?
I find your response insulting.
>>>>>>and, therefore, any misstatements should be given the benefit of the
>>>>>>doubt
>>>>>
>>>>> The first time they are made, certainly.
>>>>
>>>>Each and every time they are made, if they are made to correct a
>>>>factually incorect response, no?
>>>
>>> I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. What I am getting at
>>> is that I made numerous and vehement statements that I did not want
>>> what you and Silver claimed. You both ignored these statements, and
>>> kept right on repeating your fraudulent claims. I still say this was
>>> lying, no matter what the cause of the initial misstatements.
>>
>>Again, I never made any claims about what you wanted, that is a matter
>>between the two hemispheres of your brain, I was merely commenting on
>>what you said.
>
> And doing so incorrectly in many cases.
PPOR.
> Furthermore, I characterized many (if not all) of my
>>comments as my /opinion/, surely you can not ascertain whether I am
>>lying about /that/.
>>
>>I feel that I have been, completely and without reservation, vindicated
>>in this matter and I again I call upon you to issue the appropriate
>>retractions and apologies.
>
> Yeah, well, you have not convinced me.
I feel that I have laid out a case that would convince any reasonable
person. Have you considered the possibility that your reaction may be
unreasonable, in this case?
Again I call upon you to do what's right and issue the appropriate
retractions and apologies.
--
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Time for some more massive snippage.
>>>We have already disposed of the "authorized" (allowable) pregnancy bit.
>>>Even if it drives you to make the fantastic claim that the woman might
>>>be the one to "authorize" (allow) the pregnancy.
>>
>> Actually it drove me to make the not so fantastic claim that maybe
>> "authorize" was not the best possible word for what I intended, along
>> with an equally non fantastic claim that I really had not given all
>> that much thought until now on implementation of whatever standards
>> were set.
>
>Did you not, just yesterday, write this?
>
>"Actually, did I ever say anything about WHO should do the authorizing?
>Maybe a good case can be made that it should be solely the woman doing
>the authorizing. Maybe I would even agree to this."
From your question, you seem to think that these are contradictory in
some manner. Care to elaborate?
>
>> How could that be
>>>otherwise? We weren't planning on sending rapists, were we?
>>
>> No, although I still think all colonists should agree ahead of time as
>> to when children will be a good idea.
>>
>>>
>>>As to the "forbidden equipment" you clearly state, on Mar 8 2004, at
>>>5:00 pm
>>>
>>>"We send them no assistance when it comes to alcohol production;
>>>they are on their own."
>>>
>>>IMO, a reasonable person would conclude that "no assistance" includes
>>>equipment.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> You don't need to conclude a damn thing. I stated multiple times that
>> I did not consider it necessary or desirable to send equipment solely
>> for the production of beverage alcohol. If you disagree, care to
>> explain why?
>>
>> Yeah, I think it was Howard Berkowitz who took me to task on what you
>> quoted, pointing out that various types of alcohol have medical and
>> other uses. That caused me to change "alcohol" to "beverage alcohol."
>
>Yes, and Howard commented because you originally stated that you would
>not send a still. That is what I have been commenting on and what you
>have been calling me names over.
And I modified my viewpoint (actually, it was more of a modification
of the way I stated it) in response. You and others then made the
fraudulent claim that I wanted some sort of a prohibition. My
statements (except for one that was intended humorously and was VERY
limited even if taken seriously) ALWAYS concerned what to send from
Earth, NEVER what should be prohibited in terms of what would be built
on the moon.
Calling a liar a liar is not calling names.
I did make a non humorous, totally 100% serious statement at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.heinlein/browse_frm/thread/2bb682bf28873cfc/a8fae695e15693d7?lnk=st&q=alt.fan.heinlein+%22If+we+do+not+send+them%22&rnum=2&hl=en#a8fae695e15693d7
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X132218FB
which was "So, no, I am NOT saying we should prohibit alcohol
consumption in the colony. " That SHOULD have ended any discussion
(unless someone wanted to make a case that a prohibition would be a
good idea.) It did not. Liars kept right on claiming that I wanted a
prohibition. Gullible morons kept right on believing the lies.
>> We are dealing with human beings, so perfect functioning is not going
>> to happen. Minimal competence can happen though, and that is all that
>> is needed to prevent the problems you have been bringing up.
>
>Your powers allow you to discern which problems will arise and
>which won't?
My "powers?" What kind of "power" does it take to point out that the
selection process should be run by people who are intelligent enough
to count past ten without taking off their shoes?
>> No. Say someone does not volunteer for the Army. What will they have
>> to obey?
>
>You asked for "some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary system can
>still be authoritarian." I gave you an example of a 100% voluntary, 100%
>authoritarian system. Now you want me to show...what? How a non-volunteer
>can be oppressed by a system that they don't participate in? Are you
>baiting me?
It is still my opinion that a system that can be avoided by not
volunteering may be a lot of things, but cannot be authoritarian. I
may be wrong.
>>>Because it is childish and foolish and stupid to make a rule just for
>>>the rule's sake. A mission as important and dangerous and expensive has
>>>no room for any of those things, even in jest.
>>
>> Ok, a valid criticism, even if you missed my (perhaps lame) attempt at
>> humor. Why didn't you make it?
>
>Because you didn't present it as such, you presented it as a real rule
>with real consequences.
No, you kept right on fraudulently claiming that I wanted even more of
a prohibition than I had advocated in that post, and kept on doing so
AFTER I denied even wanting that much of a prohibition.
>And as I've already stated, I have no interest or motive to comment on
>things that are not going to happen. I was commenting on the possibility
>that the things you were proposing were seriously proposed and seriously
>considered.
And kept on doing so long after I had made the statement referenced
above (and many others).
>>>I made up nothing, I comment on what you /said/. Will you, please,
>>>understand this?
>>
>> Oh really? Let's take a look...
>>
>> "Orders from on high concerning procreation." Your words. WHERE THE
>> HELL DID I MENTION ANY ORDERS, FROM ON HIGH OR ANYWHERE ELSE?
>
>Why don't you quote it all?
Because I did not think it was necessary. Since you do, let's look at
it.
>
>"I do take issue with the orders from on high about procreation and
>I think much of the tone of your proposal smacks of paternalism.
>
>I /do/ take issue with orders from on high about procreation,
Then you are taking issue with someone else, not me.
the fact
>that you were unclear about what you meant can hardly be laid at my
>feet.
What is unclear about the statement "I do not favor orders from on
high (or anywhere else, for that matter) about procreation"?
>
>> In another post in the thread you said "If all we're gonna
>> have is another episode of "Gov't knows best" we might as well stay
>> home. " WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT
>> GOVERNMENT?
>
>Read that statement again and
>
>a) show me where it says /anything/ about what you said and
>
>b) explain how a rule making committee is not government in everything
>but name.
Where did I ever say anything about any rule making committee?
>>>Again, I never made any claims about what you wanted, that is a matter
>>>between the two hemispheres of your brain, I was merely commenting on
>>>what you said.
>>
>> And doing so incorrectly in many cases.
>
>PPOR.
Above, you seem to be fraudulently claiming that I wanted a rule
making committee concerning procreation. Did I misread it?
Pete LaGrange
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:41:28 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Time for some more massive snippage.
>
>>>>We have already disposed of the "authorized" (allowable) pregnancy bit.
>>>>Even if it drives you to make the fantastic claim that the woman might
>>>>be the one to "authorize" (allow) the pregnancy.
>>>
>>> Actually it drove me to make the not so fantastic claim that maybe
>>> "authorize" was not the best possible word for what I intended, along
>>> with an equally non fantastic claim that I really had not given all
>>> that much thought until now on implementation of whatever standards
>>> were set.
>>
>>Did you not, just yesterday, write this?
>>
>>"Actually, did I ever say anything about WHO should do the authorizing?
>>Maybe a good case can be made that it should be solely the woman doing
>>the authorizing. Maybe I would even agree to this."
>
> From your question, you seem to think that these are contradictory in
> some manner. Care to elaborate?
No I would not, I have already explained, in tedious detail, my
position. The fact that you can misunderstand it, over and over
is not my burden to correct.
I never commented on your "modified" viewpoint.
> Calling a liar a liar is not calling names.
>
> I did make a non humorous, totally 100% serious statement at
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.heinlein/browse_frm/thread/2bb682bf28873cfc/a8fae695e15693d7?lnk=st&q=alt.fan.heinlein+%22If+we+do+not+send+them%22&rnum=2&hl=en#a8fae695e15693d7
>
> or
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X132218FB
>
> which was "So, no, I am NOT saying we should prohibit alcohol
> consumption in the colony. " That SHOULD have ended any discussion
> (unless someone wanted to make a case that a prohibition would be a
> good idea.) It did not. Liars kept right on claiming that I wanted a
> prohibition. Gullible morons kept right on believing the lies.
Which is not germane to this conversation, for reasons I have already
laid out.
>>> We are dealing with human beings, so perfect functioning is not going
>>> to happen. Minimal competence can happen though, and that is all that
>>> is needed to prevent the problems you have been bringing up.
>>
>>Your powers allow you to discern which problems will arise and
>>which won't?
>
> My "powers?" What kind of "power" does it take to point out that the
> selection process should be run by people who are intelligent enough
> to count past ten without taking off their shoes?
COUNTING is not what your are relying on. You state that the selectors will
be /infallible/ when it comes to matters of a change of mind.
>>> No. Say someone does not volunteer for the Army. What will they have
>>> to obey?
>>
>>You asked for "some support for the idea that a 100% voluntary system can
>>still be authoritarian." I gave you an example of a 100% voluntary, 100%
>>authoritarian system. Now you want me to show...what? How a non-volunteer
>>can be oppressed by a system that they don't participate in? Are you
>>baiting me?
>
> It is still my opinion that a system that can be avoided by not
> volunteering may be a lot of things, but cannot be authoritarian. I
> may be wrong.
You are wrong, I gave you an indisputable example, with dictionary
definitions.
>>>>Because it is childish and foolish and stupid to make a rule just for
>>>>the rule's sake. A mission as important and dangerous and expensive has
>>>>no room for any of those things, even in jest.
>>>
>>> Ok, a valid criticism, even if you missed my (perhaps lame) attempt at
>>> humor. Why didn't you make it?
>>
>>Because you didn't present it as such, you presented it as a real rule
>>with real consequences.
>
> No, you kept right on fraudulently claiming that I wanted even more of
> a prohibition than I had advocated in that post, and kept on doing so
> AFTER I denied even wanting that much of a prohibition.
No.
>>And as I've already stated, I have no interest or motive to comment on
>>things that are not going to happen. I was commenting on the possibility
>>that the things you were proposing were seriously proposed and seriously
>>considered.
>
> And kept on doing so long after I had made the statement referenced
> above (and many others).
>
>>>>I made up nothing, I comment on what you /said/. Will you, please,
>>>>understand this?
>>>
>>> Oh really? Let's take a look...
>>>
>>> "Orders from on high concerning procreation." Your words. WHERE THE
>>> HELL DID I MENTION ANY ORDERS, FROM ON HIGH OR ANYWHERE ELSE?
>>
>>Why don't you quote it all?
>
> Because I did not think it was necessary. Since you do, let's look at
> it.
>
>>
>>"I do take issue with the orders from on high about procreation and
>>I think much of the tone of your proposal smacks of paternalism.
>>
>>I /do/ take issue with orders from on high about procreation,
>
> Then you are taking issue with someone else, not me.
Then you don't know what you /said/.
> the fact
>>that you were unclear about what you meant can hardly be laid at my
>>feet.
>
> What is unclear about the statement "I do not favor orders from on
> high (or anywhere else, for that matter) about procreation"?
Nothing, it is also not the original statement you made.
>>> In another post in the thread you said "If all we're gonna
>>> have is another episode of "Gov't knows best" we might as well stay
>>> home. " WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT
>>> GOVERNMENT?
>>
>>Read that statement again and
>>
>>a) show me where it says /anything/ about what you said and
>>
>>b) explain how a rule making committee is not government in everything
>>but name.
>
> Where did I ever say anything about any rule making committee?
Holy mother of God! Did you not say that the colonists, as a whole,
unanimously, might be the deciding factor in what a woman could do with
her body? Are they not a committee? Is this a debating tactic, to
childishly require your opponent to tediously explain concepts that
should be self-evident to a school boy?
The above is the point I have been addressing, all along. That the
possibility of a committee deciding biological issues for an individual
seems authoritarian, to me, if carried out.
You have not flatly stated that the woman will /decide for herself/ so the
/possibility/ that someone else will make that decision /for her/ still
exists. Does it not?
>>>>Again, I never made any claims about what you wanted, that is a matter
>>>>between the two hemispheres of your brain, I was merely commenting on
>>>>what you said.
>>>
>>> And doing so incorrectly in many cases.
>>
>>PPOR.
>
> Above, you seem to be fraudulently claiming that I wanted a rule
> making committee concerning procreation. Did I misread it?
Yes you did. As far as I can tell, your plan still allows for the
posibility that someone other than the woman will be deciding whether or
not she may become pregnant.
Additionally, the above, in no way, addresses my request for proof.
Retract, apologize, be a man.
I'm guessing I'll be waiting the usual 24 hours for a reply.
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Your powers allow you to discern which problems will arise and
>>>which won't?
>>
>> My "powers?" What kind of "power" does it take to point out that the
>> selection process should be run by people who are intelligent enough
>> to count past ten without taking off their shoes?
>
>COUNTING is not what your are relying on.
No, intelligence is what I am counting on. The people in charge of
selection should have skills and abilities beyond the ability to count
past ten with their shoes on, but that should be sufficient to avoid
the problems you have been bringing up.
> You state that the selectors will
>be /infallible/ when it comes to matters of a change of mind.
Better be, or we are all too likely to have problems far beyond a
colonist with cold feet (such as a partially completed colony full of
corpses).
>>>"I do take issue with the orders from on high about procreation and
>>>I think much of the tone of your proposal smacks of paternalism.
>>>
>>>I /do/ take issue with orders from on high about procreation,
>>
>> Then you are taking issue with someone else, not me.
>
>Then you don't know what you /said/.
Yes I do. Until this thread, I made no statements whatsoever about
orders concerning procreation.
>
>> the fact
>>>that you were unclear about what you meant can hardly be laid at my
>>>feet.
>>
>> What is unclear about the statement "I do not favor orders from on
>> high (or anywhere else, for that matter) about procreation"?
>
>Nothing, it is also not the original statement you made.
It is now. Once again, until now I made no statements about it. How
does that give you or anyone else the right to make claims about what
I posted?
>> Where did I ever say anything about any rule making committee?
>
>Holy mother of God! Did you not say that the colonists, as a whole,
>unanimously, might be the deciding factor in what a woman could do with
>her body? Are they not a committee? Is this a debating tactic, to
>childishly require your opponent to tediously explain concepts that
>should be self-evident to a school boy?
I believe that I ALWAYS included a qualifier such as "might."
>
>The above is the point I have been addressing, all along. That the
>possibility of a committee deciding biological issues for an individual
>seems authoritarian, to me, if carried out.
Actually, Jeannette pointed out something. It is not going to be up
to the woman, no matter how much you bleat about how it should be.
She is going to need the approval and cooperation of at least one man.
>
>You have not flatly stated that the woman will /decide for herself/ so the
>/possibility/ that someone else will make that decision /for her/ still
>exists. Does it not?
When I make no statement about something, then any possibility exists.
However: given further thought, I hereby declare all my previous
statements concerning Lunar babies to be inoperative, and they will be
replaced by the following:
A woman and her chosen partner will be the sole arbiters as to when
and if she gets pregnant. As a courtesy, they should certainly
consult with their fellow colonists, and listen seriously to any
concerns these colonists might have, but this is only a courtesy, and
the other colonists will not have any sort of a veto on the decision.
Long before the first launch, all prospective colonists should agree
on what standards will be met, and that colonists should voluntarily
refrain from pregnancy until there is consensus (not necessarily
unanimous) agreement that the child(ren) in question have a reasonable
probability of living long enough to die from old age, and that
pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing will not endanger colony
survival chances.
Some thoughts: The first habitat will probably be small and cramped.
It is hard to say how long it will take to either expand this or build
more habitats. While we are still living in this initial habitat, do
we REALLY want toddlers playing around with the environmental
controls...hydroponics...the airlock...pressure suits...the medical
stores? I really think we should have a habitat that can be used
exclusively as a nursery, perhaps as part of private family quarters.
Pete LaGrange
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:43:53 GMT, Pete LaGrange
><oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Your powers allow you to discern which problems will arise and
>>>>which won't?
>>>
>>> My "powers?" What kind of "power" does it take to point out that the
>>> selection process should be run by people who are intelligent enough
>>> to count past ten without taking off their shoes?
>>
>>COUNTING is not what your are relying on.
>
> No, intelligence is what I am counting on. The people in charge of
> selection should have skills and abilities beyond the ability to count
> past ten with their shoes on, but that should be sufficient to avoid
> the problems you have been bringing up.
>
>> You state that the selectors will
>>be /infallible/ when it comes to matters of a change of mind.
>
> Better be, or we are all too likely to have problems far beyond a
> colonist with cold feet (such as a partially completed colony full of
> corpses).
I find the expectation of infallibility unbelievably unrealistic and I
submit that plans should exist in the event that infallibility fails.
>>>>"I do take issue with the orders from on high about procreation and
>>>>I think much of the tone of your proposal smacks of paternalism.
>>>>
>>>>I /do/ take issue with orders from on high about procreation,
>>>
>>> Then you are taking issue with someone else, not me.
>>
>>Then you don't know what you /said/.
>
> Yes I do. Until this thread, I made no statements whatsoever about
> orders concerning procreation.
You made statements about authorizing children, this implies
unauthorized children. You also stated that the colonists, as a whole,
might excercise power over a woman who desires to become pregnant. The
power to prevent someone from doing as they wish is an order.
>>> the fact
>>>>that you were unclear about what you meant can hardly be laid at my
>>>>feet.
>>>
>>> What is unclear about the statement "I do not favor orders from on
>>> high (or anywhere else, for that matter) about procreation"?
>>
>>Nothing, it is also not the original statement you made.
>
> It is now. Once again, until now I made no statements about it. How
> does that give you or anyone else the right to make claims about what
> I posted?
Whoa! Are you telling me that you can change the facts concerning the
things you posted by posting something else? If you are, this has all
been a waste of time because we're operating on two different levels of
reality.
>>> Where did I ever say anything about any rule making committee?
>>
>>Holy mother of God! Did you not say that the colonists, as a whole,
>>unanimously, might be the deciding factor in what a woman could do with
>>her body? Are they not a committee? Is this a debating tactic, to
>>childishly require your opponent to tediously explain concepts that
>>should be self-evident to a school boy?
>
> I believe that I ALWAYS included a qualifier such as "might."
Yes, and as should be obvious, that is the possibility I was and am
commenting on.
>>The above is the point I have been addressing, all along. That the
>>possibility of a committee deciding biological issues for an individual
>>seems authoritarian, to me, if carried out.
>
> Actually, Jeannette pointed out something. It is not going to be up
> to the woman, no matter how much you bleat about how it should be.
> She is going to need the approval and cooperation of at least one man.
I made this point days ago, if you read my posts.
>>You have not flatly stated that the woman will /decide for herself/ so the
>>/possibility/ that someone else will make that decision /for her/ still
>>exists. Does it not?
>
> When I make no statement about something, then any possibility exists.
This is silly posturing.
> However: given further thought, I hereby declare all my previous
> statements concerning Lunar babies to be inoperative, and they will be
> replaced by the following:
>
> A woman and her chosen partner will be the sole arbiters as to when
> and if she gets pregnant. As a courtesy, they should certainly
> consult with their fellow colonists, and listen seriously to any
> concerns these colonists might have, but this is only a courtesy, and
> the other colonists will not have any sort of a veto on the decision.
> Long before the first launch, all prospective colonists should agree
> on what standards will be met, and that colonists should voluntarily
> refrain from pregnancy until there is consensus (not necessarily
> unanimous) agreement that the child(ren) in question have a reasonable
> probability of living long enough to die from old age, and that
> pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing will not endanger colony
> survival chances.
I find this eminently reasonable, and not authoritarian in any manner. I
do not, however, find that it changes anything you previously posted or
the fact that you posted it. It does not, in any way, change my opinion
about the things previously posted. Are we in agreement?
> Some thoughts: The first habitat will probably be small and cramped.
> It is hard to say how long it will take to either expand this or build
> more habitats. While we are still living in this initial habitat, do
> we REALLY want toddlers playing around with the environmental
> controls...hydroponics...the airlock...pressure suits...the medical
> stores? I really think we should have a habitat that can be used
> exclusively as a nursery, perhaps as part of private family quarters.
That is another discussion, which I will be happy to take up with you
once you have made the appropriate ammends.
Brian Maranta
> Pardon me while I gag as you desecrate the sacred holy water! :-)
Indeed!
> I always wondered how someone can know if someone was a *real* colour when
> the bottle has no prejudice as to where it is applied. Hmmm?
>
> Shucks, when I was at the Guinness Brewery last month I couldn't help
> thinking about the clientelle of this li'l bar in cyber-space. An AFH meet
> in Ireland one year would not be out of the question, would it?
Is that building not a wonder to behold? The majesty, the ambiance, the
9000 year lease encased in plexiglass in the floor of the lobby... not
to mention the free pint at one of the coolest pubs in the world; 8
stories up and with a 360 degree view of Dublin... ah, mecca.
I managed to make it there just a couple of weeks before returning home
from the UK. And I plan to go back... someday.
Cheers!
--
Brian Maranta - brian(at)magsi(dot)com - AIM: bjmaranta
Canadian Army, Signal Corps, RMC Class of '89
Mac Evangelist - Dispelling the Mac Myths.
You live and learn... or you don't live long - Heinlein
As...@tds.net
<oldma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> You state that the selectors will
>>>be /infallible/ when it comes to matters of a change of mind.
>>
>> Better be, or we are all too likely to have problems far beyond a
>> colonist with cold feet (such as a partially completed colony full of
>> corpses).
>
>I find the expectation of infallibility unbelievably unrealistic and I
>submit that plans should exist in the event that infallibility fails.
We certainly should have contingency plans for every conceivable
circumstance. One thing we might look at is submarine crews. In one
way, they are even more isolated than the colony will be, since they
must maintain radio silence. How do they deal with crewmembers who
get cold feet mid mission?
>
>>>>>"I do take issue with the orders from on high about procreation and
>>>>>I think much of the tone of your proposal smacks of paternalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>I /do/ take issue with orders from on high about procreation,
>>>>
>>>> Then you are taking issue with someone else, not me.
>>>
>>>Then you don't know what you /said/.
>>
>> Yes I do. Until this thread, I made no statements whatsoever about
>> orders concerning procreation.
>
>You made statements about authorizing children, this implies
>unauthorized children. You also stated that the colonists, as a whole,
>might excercise power over a woman who desires to become pregnant. The
>power to prevent someone from doing as they wish is an order.
Did you ever post anything off the cuff without all that much thought
as to the details of how something might work, and/or without all that
much thought as to how you were wording things?
>
>>>> the fact
>>>>>that you were unclear about what you meant can hardly be laid at my
>>>>>feet.
>>>>
>>>> What is unclear about the statement "I do not favor orders from on
>>>> high (or anywhere else, for that matter) about procreation"?
>>>
>>>Nothing, it is also not the original statement you made.
>>
>> It is now. Once again, until now I made no statements about it. How
>> does that give you or anyone else the right to make claims about what
>> I posted?
>
>Whoa! Are you telling me that you can change the facts concerning the
>things you posted by posting something else? If you are, this has all
>been a waste of time because we're operating on two different levels of
>reality.
The fact is that until this thread I made no statements concerning
implementation.
>>>You have not flatly stated that the woman will /decide for herself/ so the
>>>/possibility/ that someone else will make that decision /for her/ still
>>>exists. Does it not?
>>
>> When I make no statement about something, then any possibility exists.
>
>This is silly posturing.
Huh? Agreeing with you is silly posturing? Ok, if you say so...
>> Some thoughts: The first habitat will probably be small and cramped.
>> It is hard to say how long it will take to either expand this or build
>> more habitats. While we are still living in this initial habitat, do
>> we REALLY want toddlers playing around with the environmental
>> controls...hydroponics...the airlock...pressure suits...the medical
>> stores? I really think we should have a habitat that can be used
>> exclusively as a nursery, perhaps as part of private family quarters.
>
>That is another discussion, which I will be happy to take up with you
>once you have made the appropriate ammends.
You will not get them. I will concede that what I initially posted
concerning when Lunar babies should happen could have easily been
misinterpreted to mean that I wanted some kind of committee or other
authoritarian system. Once I started denying this vehemently numerous
times, continuing the claims was not a mistake or a misunderstanding.
It was lying.
Similarly with the alcohol issue. Even if you take my one statement
suggesting a prohibition seriously, it ONLY applied to consumption,
not to equipment or production, and specified that even this
prohibition would be lifted once production was underway. Once again,
even if the initial misunderstanding was a mistake, continuing to make
the fraudulent claims after numerous and vehement denials on my part
was lying.
If that means you will refuse to discuss certain subjects, so be it.
If you are offended by it, good. I get offended when people lie about
what I have posted.