Quotables To Ponder: Toxics In Clark (Revisited)
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
" ...It would be difficult to sue the US because Philippine courts
have no jurisdiction over sovereign states, and that any decision
could not be executed if the plaintiffs win ..."
- DFAS - Domingo Siazon, Jr.
re: <http://www.philstar.com/datedata/i21_jul21/gen14.htm>
--
Copyright © 2000 C5GP All Rights Reserved
In Consistent Pursuit of ISO 9006 Compliance
skyrider
"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
message news:GiZd5.355923$MB.56...@news6.giganews.com...
>
> " ...It would be difficult to sue the US because Philippine courts
> have no jurisdiction over sovereign states, and that any decision
> could not be executed if the plaintiffs win ..."
>
> - DFAS - Domingo Siazon, Jr.
>
> re: <http://www.philstar.com/datedata/i21_jul21/gen14.htm>
I am curious here. Why do the people have to sue the United States? Here's
my point. The land that the United States bases were on was leased from the
Government of the Philippines, and is the property and possession of the
Philippines government. Which is *why* it could demand it back from the
United States. Now perhaps citizens of the Philippines may not sue the
United States government in Philippine courts, but couldn't the government
of the RP sue in suitable international venue? In the United States what we
often see, is a company that is .5% responsible for a problem having to pay
100% of the cost because they *have* the money. Why not sue the Philippines
government, which *does* have the money, (and is clearly more then a little
responsible for the problem of either permitting the land to be used by the
USG or the people being on it when it after it was contaminated) and it in
turn can sue to recover the expenses from the United States Government. That
way the people get the timely treatment that they need from the government
settlement, and the Government has the time and resources to recover the
expenses that the plaintiffs can't afford. Or is it just better to make the
USG look like bad guys?
Regards,
Gary
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
Many questions but so few answers ...Who knows? Yes, the land was indeed
'leased,' but by the same token if one had 'leased' a house to say ...A
bunch of drunken US sailors, whom for some maniacal reason thought to trash
the property, or even wantonly defecate throughout the premises, or recklessly
housed spent nuclear fuel rods/pellets, is one well within the capacity to
seek compensation for damages, and reparations? I would think so.
And in terms a possible venue, it could be taken to an international
forum like say, the United Nations? Perhaps.
But yes, the possible co-defendents in this would be the R.P. government
as well (re: comparative damages), and IMO it's not JUST about making the
U.S. government (ie. military) "look like the bad guys," since they've
been 'looking' like that since they left, and the R.P. goverment ...Well
that matter speaks for itself. Nevertheless, it's about making amends and
compensating for a disgression and negligence committed over years of a
'lease.' IMHO
- Dominic
skyrider
>
> Many questions but so few answers ...Who knows? Yes, the land was indeed
> 'leased,' but by the same token if one had 'leased' a house to say ...A
> bunch of drunken US sailors, whom for some maniacal reason thought to
trash
> the property, or even wantonly defecate throughout the premises, or
recklessly
> housed spent nuclear fuel rods/pellets, is one well within the capacity to
> seek compensation for damages, and reparations? I would think so.
Right, so the owner (the RP) has a right to be compensated for the damage to
it's *property* (unless there is a provision in the contract which dealt
with this kind of circumstance which might require the RP to pay any
complaint out of it's "rent" which might then explain allot about how this
has been handled) and the innocent third parties might have a right to sue
the owner of the property for the abuses it let it's lessors commit.
>
> And in terms a possible venue, it could be taken to an international
> forum like say, the United Nations? Perhaps.
So I would think. Or the Hague.
>
> But yes, the possible co-defendents in this would be the R.P. government
> as well (re: comparative damages), and IMO it's not JUST about making the
> U.S. government (ie. military) "look like the bad guys," since they've
> been 'looking' like that since they left, and the R.P. goverment ...Well
> that matter speaks for itself. Nevertheless, it's about making amends and
> compensating for a disgression and negligence committed over years of a
> 'lease.' IMHO
Right! But look at the comfort woman issue. Japan and the RP (as well as
other nations) agree to compensation which is paid.. (in the case of the RP,
to the government) and anyone who has a claim of war damages against Japan
has the right to go to their government and receive compensation. This is
why the Japanese government has refused to compensate the people that are
coming forward now... They paid already! Why doesn't the RP government
compensate the people in both case... We know they got the money! (from both
governments in both cases).
If extra money is required who better then the government to pursue the
issue, the Governments of the United States and Japan might be able to
ignore citizens of other nations, but they must at some time or other deal
with the GoRP.
I suspect contractually it is the RP that should be taking care of the
"victims" in both cases refuses to do so in hopes of more compensation then
they already agreed to.
Regards,
Gary
>
>
> - Dominic
Jimmy Navarro
ground they had to abandon the base? I'd seen also huge military bases being
abandoned like Fort Ord, a lot bigger than Clark. Calif. State
University-Monterey now occupies almost the whole area, they didn't do any
toxic clean up like what is being alleged in Clark. U.S. to pay damages?
Ain't gonna happen!
skyrider wrote:
--
I am using another Red Hat 6.2 clone -- Gentus Abit Linux Release 3.0!
Visit http://www.gentus.com for more about this Linux distribution.
xylene
The land that the United States bases were on was leased from the
Government of the Philippines, and is the property and possession of the
Philippines government. Which is *why* it could demand it back from the
United States. The land that the United States bases were on was leased from
the
Government of the Philippines, and is the property and possession of the
Philippines government. Which is *why* it could demand it back from the
United States.
I'm sorry, those bases were not leased. The NATO bases in Europe were, but
not in the Philippines. When you lease something you pay a certain amount of
fee for it and this was not the case in the Philippines. Manong Ben Guadiz,
what is your insight on this one?
skyrider <skyr...@psn.net> wrote in message
news:Q8%d5.326$I7.1...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote
in
Joekerr
"skyrider" <skyr...@psn.net> wrote:
> Right, so the owner (the RP) has a right to be compensated for the
damage to
> it's *property* (unless there is a provision in the contract which
dealt
> with this kind of circumstance which might require the RP to pay any
> complaint out of it's "rent" which might then explain allot about how
this
> has been handled) and the innocent third parties might have a right
to sue
> the owner of the property for the abuses it let it's lessors commit.
Clinton has already promised to give money towards cleaning the sites
at issue. As well as additional aid. The contract issues probably won't
even be involved...since it's in the US' best intrest to settle the
issue as quickly and quietly as possible...especially with the recent
problems in other Asian nations involving GIs... kinda like settling
out of court to avoid bad publicity or just to end the matter as
cheaply as possible since protracted court suits can be expensive even
if you win.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Benjamin L. Guadiz
xylene <hex...@wt.net> wrote in message news:39791...@data.wt.net...
> Skyrider wrote:
>
> The land that the United States bases were on was leased from the
> Government of the Philippines, and is the property and possession of the
> Philippines government. Which is *why* it could demand it back from the
> United States. The land that the United States bases were on was leased
from
> the
> Government of the Philippines, and is the property and possession of the
> Philippines government. Which is *why* it could demand it back from the
> United States.
>
> I'm sorry, those bases were not leased. The NATO bases in Europe were, but
> not in the Philippines. When you lease something you pay a certain amount
of
> fee for it and this was not the case in the Philippines. Manong Ben
Guadiz,
> what is your insight on this one?
>
===========
MY TURN:
On July 4, 1946 U.S. High Commissioner Paul V. McNutt, at the
launch of Philippine Independence in the Luneta Grandstand, read
the ***official*** Proclamation of Independence (political and economic???)
on behalf of US President Harry S. Truman. However, far from a FULL,
100% and unconditional withdrawal of sovereignty from its former
colony, Uncle Sam, through its Pro Consul, made it be known in
private, behind-the-scenes tete-a-tete between Philippine President
Manuel A. Roxas and McNutt that the official proclamation was in
actuality subject to certain unspecified reservations embodied in
legislative bills pending before the United States Congress, amongst
others, the issue on US military bases. Said bases included, but were
not limited to, Clark Air Force Base; Subic Bay Naval Base; Sangley Point;
San Miguel Communications Station; Poro Point (Wallace Air Station);
Camp John Hay; radar and tracking stations, recreational facilities,
military-training reservations, Crow Valley bombing ranges and other
sensitive undisclosed Mindanao stations.
The Philippine High Tribunal, having none of those non-sensical,
unspecified reservations, rejected the legality thereof. There
being no other US Government objections thereafter, Inang Bayan
therefore, exercised unquestioned full control, ownership and
sovereignty in its National Territory as described in Article I of the
1935 Commonwealth Constitution - or so it seemed !!!
On March 11, 1947 the Military Bases Agreement was signed
between the RP and US Governments providing for 99-year
***L-E-A-S-E-S*** for the bases and for extra-territorial rights,
including jurisdictional sovereignty in favor of the US, within and
outside thereof. As defined, a lease is a contract for exclusive
possession of lands, tenements ., for terms of years, at will, or
for any interest less than that of lessor, usually for a specific rent
or compensation. (Feeley v. Michigan Avenue National Bank,
1 District 141 Ill.App.3d 187) In other words, a valid lease establishes
the existence of a lessor - lessee relationship (owner - renter)
where both parties benefit mutually for an agreed-upon monetary
compensation, fixed or otherwise.
That said, it is within a Pinoy's reasonable mind to expect that any
and all monetary appropriations received from Uncle Sam, with
respect to that compensatory expectation, is ***RENT***. Call it
any other way and it still remains the same - RENTAL PAYMENT !!!
The US Government argues otherwise, claiming that since the
US Treasury is the actual "disburser" of currency, therefore if it claims
to be AID, then it must be AID, based on two claimed facts, thus:
1. Policy regarding worldwide US military bases are for the
mutual benefit and mutual defense for both host-nation
and the US; therefore, NO RENT is expected, or even
paid, within the context of that bilateral relationship
and alliance.
2. In 1953, then-US Attorney General Brownell claimed for the
US, ownership over some bases in Inang Bayan and not mere
leasehold interests, thus effectively negating the expectation,
or appropriation, for rental payments.
Regardless of any interpretative differences as above-postulated,
it remains my opinion that the original agreement was for a lease.
Therefore, any and all legalities pertaining thereto, or arising therefrom,
must be resolved within the definition and elements of a lease.
That the above-mentioned policies by the US Government can
be mooted argumentatively is beyond doubt. (See FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION controverting the "mutual benefit"
argumentation). Furthermore, the late Claro M. Recto, in a detailed
legal MEMORANDUM submitted to then-Secretary of Foreign
Affairs Carlos P. Garcia and in response to Brownell's
assertions, rationally and efficiently argued that said averments
have no legal basis - international law or within the spirit and
context of the Bases Agreement. Said MEMORANDUM, dated
March 3, 1954 was published in its entirety by the MANILA DAILY
BULLETIN (Bulletin Today) on its March 17, 1954 issue (archives).
Since it was neither imperative nor appropriate for the US Government
to rebut the issues in the published MEMORANDUM - the press
being a forum non conveniens - its response was felt in other venues.
Worth considering also within this light is IF and ASSUMING
the US Congress appropriates RENTAL PAYMENTS, then, it is safe
to reasonably infer that a second appropriations bill must be
prepared by the Office of Budget and Management; submitted to
and voted by the legislative body for AID funds. By denying rental
payments, it saves the US Taxpayer money while at the same time by
providing AID - IN LIEU THEREOF - and its stipulated / attached
strings, it imposes demands and expects a sizable return for its
dollar allocation. Truth of the matter is with respect to the
AID appropriations, the disbursement thereof is subject to the
capricious whims and pravailing political mood in Capitol Hill.
All "beggar" Inang Bayan has got to do is receive whatever Uncle Sam
provides - lease rental payments or aid funds or whatchamacallit !!!
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION:
That the Military Bases Agreement were so onerous, one-sided,
arbitrary and an affront to Philippine criminal justice and
sovereignty is no longer arguable; hence, the element of "mutual
benefit" is debunked. Distinguished SCFer Frank Jenista correctly
placed the 25-year reduction into proper perspective.
manong ben
bl...@ix.netcom.com
bl...@earthlink.net
Colton, CA 92324
USA
Totoong Kuya
"skyrider" <skyr...@psn.net> wrote in message
news:Q8%d5.326$I7.1...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> I am curious here. Why do the people have to sue the United States?
Here's
> my point. The land that the United States bases were on was leased
from the
> Government of the Philippines, and is the property and possession of
the
> Philippines government. Which is *why* it could demand it back from
the
> United States. Now perhaps citizens of the Philippines may not sue the
> United States government in Philippine courts, but couldn't the
government
> of the RP sue in suitable international venue? In the United States
what we
> often see, is a company that is .5% responsible for a problem having
to pay
> 100% of the cost because they *have* the money. Why not sue the
Philippines
> government, which *does* have the money, (and is clearly more then a
little
> responsible for the problem of either permitting the land to be used
by the
> USG or the people being on it when it after it was contaminated) and
it in
> turn can sue to recover the expenses from the United States
Government. That
> way the people get the timely treatment that they need from the
government
> settlement, and the Government has the time and resources to recover
the
> expenses that the plaintiffs can't afford. Or is it just better to
make the
> USG look like bad guys?
Ummmmmm, I think most of the money you refer to with regards to the
Philippine government is locked away in Switzerland for the time being.
But I do have a serious question. Couldn't they take it to the U.S.
Federal Court system instead of the Philippine court system?
--
Totoong Kuya - the people's poster.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are three ways to solve any problem: the
right way, the wrong way, and the Filipino way."
shout outs: h2ja...@bolafree.prodigy.net
[lose "bolafree" for serious replies]
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
>"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
>message news:Ng0e5.356944$MB.56...@news6.giganews.com...
>> Many questions but so few answers ...Who knows? Yes, the land was indeed
>> 'leased,' but by the same token if one had 'leased' a house to say ...A
>> bunch of drunken US sailors, whom for some maniacal reason thought to
>> trash the property, or even wantonly defecate throughout the premises, or
>> recklessly housed spent nuclear fuel rods/pellets, is one well within the capacity to
>> seek compensation for damages, and reparations? I would think so.
>Right, so the owner (the RP) has a right to be compensated for the damage to
>it's *property* (unless there is a provision in the contract which dealt
>with this kind of circumstance which might require the RP to pay any
>complaint out of it's "rent" which might then explain allot about how this
>has been handled) and the innocent third parties might have a right to sue
>the owner of the property for the abuses it let it's lessors commit.
Actually, let's say for the sake of discussion, the "owner" is the
Filipino-people at large, there in the Philippines : )
>> And in terms a possible venue, it could be taken to an international
>> forum like say, the United Nations? Perhaps.
>So I would think. Or the Hague.
Who knows, but in the realm of international incidents requiring
adjudication and or action I don't think this particular problem
would be readily addressed anytime soon by the U.N. I do however
believe that if pursued in a tactful manner, it could have some
positive results in the manner in which an equitable settlement
might be attained - Inspite of the many deaths which have already
occured.
>> But yes, the possible co-defendents in this would be the R.P. government
>> as well (re: comparative damages), and IMO it's not JUST about making the
>> U.S. government (ie. military) "look like the bad guys," since they've
>> been 'looking' like that since they left, and the R.P. goverment ...Well
>> that matter speaks for itself. Nevertheless, it's about making amends and
>> compensating for a disgression and negligence committed over years of a
>> 'lease.' IMHO
>Right! But look at the comfort woman issue. Japan and the RP (as well as
>other nations) agree to compensation which is paid.. (in the case of the RP,
>to the government) and anyone who has a claim of war damages against Japan
>has the right to go to their government and receive compensation. This is
>why the Japanese government has refused to compensate the people that are
>coming forward now... They paid already! Why doesn't the RP government
>compensate the people in both case... We know they got the money! (from both
>governments in both cases).
That's the problem. The Philippine gov't doesn't have the money to
compensate. It's strength against the dollar has reached record lows
and her economy ...Well, that speaks for itself in doling out any form
of funds. Moreover, the opinion of the DFAS says it all. It is possible
however, that the RP gov't might try to exonerate itself by placing entire
responsiblity upon the U.S., yet that is why this current suit against -both-
gov'ts appears to be viable. But in the whole grand scheme of things it
appears to be moot, or even hopeless.
>If extra money is required who better then the government to pursue the
>issue, the Governments of the United States and Japan might be able to
>ignore citizens of other nations, but they must at some time or other deal
>with the GoRP.
Good point.
>I suspect contractually it is the RP that should be taking care of the
>"victims" in both cases refuses to do so in hopes of more compensation then
>they already agreed to.
>Regards,
>Gary
I thought I read sometime earlier this year that the U.S. gov't had approved
a 'cleanup package,' & what ever came of it is still a question to me.
l8R
Bastos Kano
Americans abused their "lease" is the matter of "improvements" made at the
bases. I can only guess, having never had reason to visit a US base in the
RP, that these bases include buildings, roads, airports, etc., with
substantial electrical and communications infrastructures far superior to
those of the surrounding communities. Judging from the US bases that were
shut down in the States, these provide excellent places for business and
residences. In the old Presidio in San Francisco, such luminaries as George
Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic, Robert Redford's Sundance group, etc.,
are all vying for space. My guess is that the US left improvements in the
hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions.
When I was in the RP in 1995, all the talk was how these bases would attract
the scared businesses from Hong Kong who did not know what would happen in
1999. There was a great deal of optimism that future uses of the bases
would actually involve helping the local economies with "acceptable"
employment (i.e., not hookers or bars) and bring tax revenues into the
community coffers. It was stated to me that the lease payments from the
bases never made it into the economy but rather the pockets of politicians.
I do not believe that optimism exists any more, nor have I heard great
things about current use of the bases.
Randy
"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
message news:Ng0e5.356944$MB.56...@news6.giganews.com...
> skyrider <skyr...@psn.net> wrote:
>
> > "Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote
in
> > message news:GiZd5.355923$MB.56...@news6.giganews.com...
> >>
> >> " ...It would be difficult to sue the US because Philippine courts
> >> have no jurisdiction over sovereign states, and that any decision
> >> could not be executed if the plaintiffs win ..."
> >>
> >> - DFAS - Domingo Siazon, Jr.
> >>
> >> re: <http://www.philstar.com/datedata/i21_jul21/gen14.htm>
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Gary
>
> Many questions but so few answers ...Who knows? Yes, the land was indeed
> 'leased,' but by the same token if one had 'leased' a house to say ...A
> bunch of drunken US sailors, whom for some maniacal reason thought to
trash
> the property, or even wantonly defecate throughout the premises, or
recklessly
> housed spent nuclear fuel rods/pellets, is one well within the capacity to
> seek compensation for damages, and reparations? I would think so.
>
> And in terms a possible venue, it could be taken to an international
> forum like say, the United Nations? Perhaps.
>
> But yes, the possible co-defendents in this would be the R.P. government
> as well (re: comparative damages), and IMO it's not JUST about making the
> U.S. government (ie. military) "look like the bad guys," since they've
> been 'looking' like that since they left, and the R.P. goverment ...Well
> that matter speaks for itself. Nevertheless, it's about making amends and
> compensating for a disgression and negligence committed over years of a
> 'lease.' IMHO
>
>
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
> One issue that is never addressed in these discussions about how the horrid
> Americans abused their "lease" is the matter of "improvements" made at the
> bases. I can only guess, having never had reason to visit a US base in the
> RP, that these bases include buildings, roads, airports, etc., with
> substantial electrical and communications infrastructures far superior to
> those of the surrounding communities. Judging from the US bases that were
> shut down in the States, these provide excellent places for business and
> residences. In the old Presidio in San Francisco, such luminaries as George
> Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic, Robert Redford's Sundance group, etc.,
> are all vying for space. My guess is that the US left improvements in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions.
Heck. I'll address if I may, 'po. Of course you are being facetious when you
compare whatever 'improvements' made by the US military over the years in this
"unmutual arrangement" (re: B. Guadiz), with the deaths of those who died in Clark
and the 'millions and billions of dollars,' spent to 'improve,' these little corners
of RP, no? What's a few hundred Filipino lives compared to the millions of
dollars spent in providing 'buildings, roads, etc' for the exclusive use of the
visiting occupying military forces, then, in comparison with the deaths of those
Filipinos here-and-now? And we are not talking about what some wealthy Marin
County dweller did for well-preserved Presidio, where there have been no
deaths, that I know of, resulting from the mis-management/mis-handling of
toxic wastes. There is a point in here somewhere and I apologize for not
seeing it immediately ...But we'll get back to this later.
> When I was in the RP in 1995, all the talk was how these bases would attract
> the scared businesses from Hong Kong who did not know what would happen in
> 1999. There was a great deal of optimism that future uses of the bases
> would actually involve helping the local economies with "acceptable"
> employment (i.e., not hookers or bars) and bring tax revenues into the
> community coffers. It was stated to me that the lease payments from the
> bases never made it into the economy but rather the pockets of politicians.
Where else could it of gone? But that's neither here nor there. It's about
the Filipino-people who died as the result of the US military abandoning and
leaving behind toxics which have killed a number of Filipinos. It's about
the RP government being inept in adjudicating and pursuing this matter at
a diplomatic level. And while it can be said that one can spread the
responsibility and blame all around (eg. warnings to the victims of the
toxic levels at CABCOM), the common denominator is: Who negligently left
it (toxics) there and who didn't take up measures to "clean-it-up?"
> I do not believe that optimism exists any more, nor have I heard great
> things about current use of the bases.
> Randy
From a personal perspective & being there on a frequent basis, this 'optimism'
does exist in the hearts of those who are actually doing something about it.
It burns within those who care about the Philippines and whom sacrifice in whatever
little way they can, inspite of those who -ridicule- this sense of "pride" and
"virtue" from the comfort of their CONUS domicile, with their electric rice cooker,
rice dispenser, large wooden eating utensils on the wall, Ifuago Man-In-A-Barrel,
ABS-CBN/GMA-7/Disney satellite access, bottles of patis & bagoong & Johnny Walker
Black, chinelas/shoes adorning the footmat on their doorway, and inclusive of all
the trappings of a Filipino household - Yes, time will tell just how far this
'sense of pride,' and 'optimism' will be chronicled and publicated.
Ooops. Heheheh ...I got carried away, pls. just get bek to me on the Clarkfield
matter : )
l8R
Bastos Kano
Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet I have
not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any responses here.
Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they lived there and got
sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She looked at my cow and the
milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize this, but I have seen nothing in
these discussions to clarify the nature or extent of the problem, just
people jumping on a "those dastardly Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our
people are dying from it." bandwagon.
WHAT KIND OF TOXICS are we talking about (hate to yell, but no one seems to
get around to discussing that little matter)? What is the extent and nature
of the contamination? How are people being exposed? If you live in a
garbage dump, and you get buried, you need to take at least some of the
blame for your choice of domicile, not sue the city or people who created
the garbage. Are we talking people living in buildings with asbestos
ceilings? Kids eating lead paint? Hairless children playing under high
voltage lines? Wearing pieces of spent fuel rods as ornaments?
What evidence is there that the 2 cases of heart disease which are cited in
these discussions were related to toxics? As I read in another thread,
incidence of heart disease is increasing across the RP. Where's the smoking
gun?
The town next to where I live in CA has a big Chevron refinery. Every few
years, they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind of emissions.
Instantly thousands of residents go to local hospitals and stand in line for
hours for "treatment" so they can get in on a settlement, no matter that the
surrounding third-party environmental monitors show nothing dangerous.
Lawyers actually have people handing out business cards to those waiting in
line. 10-15 years ago the Safeway grocery warehouse on the outskirts of
town caught on fire, discharging lots of smoke. Safeway ended up giving
something like $2400 each to thousands of people who lived and worked as far
as 15 miles away. When Safeway declined to rebuild the warehouse in
Richmond, opting for some place in the Central Valley, there was a great
wailing and protest over the loss of local jobs. "How can you do this to
us!"
Let's get some facts on the table, and not just assume the extent of the
problem because it a) involves the frightening buzz words "toxic waste" and
b) has people suing.
Randy
"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
message news:k6if5.372655$MB.59...@news6.giganews.com...
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
:OK. Enlighten me further.
Why sure, Bastos, but I was the impression that you knew it all here, 'coz
I sure don't ;-)
:Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet I have
:not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any responses here.
:Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they lived there and got
:sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She looked at my cow and the
:milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize this, but I have seen nothing in
:these discussions to clarify the nature or extent of the problem, just
:people jumping on a "those dastardly Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our
:people are dying from it." bandwagon.
Apparently you've gone into some form of strict denial, given your apoligist-like
yet, entertaining retort. But pls. consider these items, and we aren't only
talking of deaths here, we are talking about birth defects and chronic health
problems which may be a direct result of the waste/refuse left behind by the
USAF/military in '91 after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption ...And don't worry
I'm sure you'll be able to find the names of those who died:
o Groups to file class suit to press clean-up of Clark Base
<http://www.inquirer.net/issues/may99/may15/news/news_10.htm>
o 46 more toxic contaminated sites at Clark identified
<http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9906B&L=balita-l&P=R4700>
o US Senator tells Pentagon to respond to reports on toxic issues in Clark
<http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9906B&L=balita-l&P=R6533>
o Clark evacuation site closed due to toxic contamination
<http://www.inquirer.net/issues/feb2000/feb25/news/news_12.htm>
o US BASES' LEGACY Another death linked to toxic wastes
<http://www.inquirer.net/issues/apr2000/apr04/news/news_10.htm>
o Another Clark toxic waste 'victim' dies; more kids ill
<http://208.184.76.171/datedata/g22_may22/gen13.htm>
o Senate reports on toxic wastes
<http://www.mb.com.ph/main/2000%2D04/mn042405.asp>
Etc. etc., ad infinitum ...It's pretty much a Filipino-thing I suppose, with
nothing much in the US media, but please feel free to sift even more.
:WHAT KIND OF TOXICS are we talking about (hate to yell, but no one seems to
:get around to discussing that little matter)? What is the extent and nature
:of the contamination? How are people being exposed? If you live in a
:garbage dump, and you get buried, you need to take at least some of the
:blame for your choice of domicile, not sue the city or people who created
:the garbage. Are we talking people living in buildings with asbestos
:ceilings? Kids eating lead paint? Hairless children playing under high
:voltage lines? Wearing pieces of spent fuel rods as ornaments?
Very funny. Apparently you are indeed attempting to 'trivialize' this matter
by attempting to diminish the seriousness of this catastrophe, as well as
snidely inferring that Filipinos by nature are drawn to 'garbage dumps' and
in the context of the tragedy in Patayas. Yet, your logical fallacy, in a
feeble attempt to impose an ad populum of sorts in the context of -this-
issue has been duly noted,
And apparently you haven't taken the time to consider that many of these
'toxics' have yet to be determined, and has the US government/military
haven't been forthright and helpful in addressing, if not share what sort of
chemicals, dioxins, and potentially hazardous material stored could be causing
these health problems amongst the population there. Moreover, I find it
interesting that one's passion to out-of-hand eliminate any culpability by
the US military/government is quite telling.
:What evidence is there that the 2 cases of heart disease which are cited in
:these discussions were related to toxics? As I read in another thread,
:incidence of heart disease is increasing across the RP. Where's the smoking
:gun?
Hmmm. The CABCOM facility? What of the cases involving severe 'skin irritation,
physical deformations in babies, high rate of miscarriages, spontaneous abortions,
swelling of body parts,' concentrated therein? McDonald's hamburgers and
fries? It's not a far stretch to consider the cause, but to out-of-hand
attribute it to negligence of those afflicted is exactly what the US/RP
government is set out to do it appears.
:The town next to where I live in CA has a big Chevron refinery. Every few
:years, they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind of emissions.
:Instantly thousands of residents go to local hospitals and stand in line for
:hours for "treatment" so they can get in on a settlement, no matter that the
:surrounding third-party environmental monitors show nothing dangerous.
:Lawyers actually have people handing out business cards to those waiting in
:line. 10-15 years ago the Safeway grocery warehouse on the outskirts of
:town caught on fire, discharging lots of smoke. Safeway ended up giving
:something like $2400 each to thousands of people who lived and worked as far
:as 15 miles away. When Safeway declined to rebuild the warehouse in
:Richmond, opting for some place in the Central Valley, there was a great
:wailing and protest over the loss of local jobs. "How can you do this to
:us!"
Well, that Safeway facility now in Tracy is operating just fine, but I wonder
why it's just a stones throw away from a water reclamation facility? Who knows?
Apparently, they know well of the inherent dangers of operating near an
accident-prone area. Think about it, it's not just 'every few years.' Withing the
past 12-months the Avon refinery there has had numerous problems ...But what does
this have to do with those suffering in the Philippines, namely Clark airfield?
Nothing. Wala. It's nothing more than a form of diversionary-proof to
counter the compelling evidence and accounts coming out of Clark Field,
Pampanga.
:Let's get some facts on the table, and not just assume the extent of the
:problem because it a) involves the frightening buzz words "toxic waste" and
:b) has people suing.
:Randy
Let's expand upon those 'facts,' with a dose of reality shall we?
1) The US Air Force for years operated a large/major military facility in Clark/Angeles
2) People have died from the "toxics" that were left behind by the US military/gov't
a) 'involves frightening buzz words (toxic waste)'
3) The US/RP government have been impotent/negligent in assessing and addressing this
now deadly problem
4) Legal measures are taken in order to recompensate the victims/victim's families
b) 'has people suing'
5) People to date are suffering and died as a result of the "toxics" left behind
Please don't get too hung up on the semantics, (ie. "toxic"), but consider the
collateral-damage inflicted upon the Filipino-people there in Pampanga and the
fact that once upon a time there was a USAF base there prior to when it was nothing
more than a well-foliaged flood plain, as well as your non-sequiturs and infallable
should-would-conclusionary manner in the presentation of a counterpoint ...However,
this doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to your next meandering retort ;-)
Bastos Kano
source of contamination at issue -- the water supply.
As I'm sure you're aware, one simply cannot point to the two victims who
died of cancer and draw a direct link to the mercury and coliform levels in
the drinking water. These have to be viewed within the sample population to
determine whether there is any indication that these deaths are out of the
expected range of such occurances. "Everybody who has lived there will die"
is a true statement, but not an actionable one.
I found this quote from your second reference to be of interest:
*****
Recina said that a CHR team she led collected water samples at
the Cabcom evacuation center last April 15 due to reports that they had
affected lahar victims there.
The water samples have been brought to the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB) for laboratory examination. The samples which
appeared to contain high level of mercury and traces of nitrates were
taken from shallow wells.
However, CDC's enviromental management department chief Juan
Miguel Fuentes said that water supply inside the zone is sourced from
deepwells "which has been tested and confirmed to be the same standard
with the national standard for drinking water."
*****
Thus it appears there is some question as to where the contaminated samples
were drawn and whether the actual potable water is contaminated. I'm not in
denial here, just wanting to make sure there is a real issue. In the mean
time, here's a thought -- relocate the people elsewhere. Staying in an old
motor pool is probably not the wisest thing to do under any circumstances.
An interesting comment which shows how biased people are when describing the
dangers of the contamination comes from the same article:
*****
Nerissa Sagum-Agustin, PTFBC Clark coordinator, said the US and Philippine
government agencies responsible for the transfer of evacuees to Cabcom
should be made liable for the exposing the victims to harm and ailments.
''Cabcom evacuees have been victimized twice: first by the eruption, second
and much worse, by exposure to toxic contamination,'' she said.
*****
Her claim that the toxic contamination is "much worse" than the 1000+ who
died in Pinatubo is hyperbole, to say the least. (see
http://www.inquirer.net/issues/jul99/jul06/news/news_3.htm, the same news
source the quote was taken from)
Here's another interesting quote from your citations:
*****
Artaserxes Sampang, MPC executive director, said the permanent closure of
the Cabcom would be implemented by the end of March.
''The MPC is set to declare the Cabcom area permanently closed as an
evacuation center for Pinatubo victims as soon as all the remaining families
there shall have been transferred. They asked that they be allowed to stay
in Cabcom until March so as not to disrupt their children's schooling,'' he
said.
Sampang said 205 families are still living in Cabcom. He, however, said only
175 families are legitimate lahar victims while the remaining 30 are
squatters.
*****
So, we have lahar victims who believe they are in peril for their lives who
asked not to be relocated because it would disrupt their children's
schooling. Does this speak to the urgency of the medical threat they feel?
They are willing to expose themselves and their children to slow and painful
death for the sake of their doomed kids' schoolmate friendships and teacher
attachments? This doesn't sound right. We also have squatters who risk
death. Nerissa Sagum-Agustin also said that people had been complaining of
symptoms of contamination since 1995. Wouldn't the liability then be shared
with the RP agencies responsible for housing the refugees in the motor pool?
How many health problems could have been avoided if they had been moved back
then? Ever see the Disney movie "Tarzan", where one gorilla kid punches
another with the second's fist, saying, "Stop hitting yourself. <punch> Stop
hitting yourself <punch>"? Seems every one is blameless and has no
responsibility except old Uncle Sugar.
You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up any toxic
contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP compensates the US
for the "tenant improvements". Any legal procedings against a former tenant
would involve both from my experience. I also think the Philippine people
should demand an accountinng of all monies paid by the US to the RP, whether
"aid" or lease payments or whatever, for the bases. Get the US GAO to give
the exact fugures, then hire an independent auditing firm to track the
money. The politicians who stole much or most of this should then be
prosecuted and attempts made to recover the monies.
My sympathies go to the people whose lives were devastated by Pinatubo and
now a possible health risk. I draw the line at placing all the blame on the
USG and military, and do not believe that a knee-jerk response is in order.
First, determine the facts, then address the issues without anti-American
rhetoric and finger pointing.
I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows the
Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers of WW2 who
lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and enslaving
Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that transaction, too.
Randy
"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
message news:aenf5.148210$t91.1...@news4.giganews.com...
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
:Thanks for the links. Very informative. At least I have a handle on the
:source of contamination at issue -- the water supply.
No problem ...Yet, a conduit in the proliferation of the toxics, yes.
:As I'm sure you're aware, one simply cannot point to the two victims who
:died of cancer and draw a direct link to the mercury and coliform levels in
:the drinking water. These have to be viewed within the sample population to
:determine whether there is any indication that these deaths are out of the
:expected range of such occurances. "Everybody who has lived there will die"
:is a true statement, but not an actionable one.
Oh? The effort/action to at least care and provide assistance for the
afflicted and infirmed does not fit one's criteria an "actionable one?"
IOW - Ignore it? Interesting postulation.
:I found this quote from your second reference to be of interest:
:*****
:Recina said that a CHR team she led collected water samples at
:the Cabcom evacuation center last April 15 due to reports that they had
:affected lahar victims there. The water samples have been brought to
:the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) for laboratory examination.
:The samples which appeared to contain high level of mercury and traces
:of nitrates were taken from shallow wells. However, CDC's enviromental
:management department chief Juan Miguel Fuentes said that water supply
:inside the zone is sourced from deepwells "which has been tested and
:confirmed to be the same standard with the national standard for drinking
:water."
Ah, but in an -independent- study: "...Weston International reported that
14 sites inside the economic zone are contaminated with hyrdocarbons,
benzyne and other cancer-causing elements. These sites include the former
Clark Motorpool, Corrosion Control Area, Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office, Mabalacat landfill, Fire Department and Training Area, Wagner Aviation,
Civil Engineering Entomology Area, and former Clark base hospital..." all of
which were within the realm, and control of the US military while there."
And here we possibly have the RP government at odds with a group whose
interests are in and of those who were 'contaminated,' and for the
sake of objectivity perhaps there is an 'agenda' with regard to both.
:*****
:Thus it appears there is some question as to where the contaminated samples
:were drawn and whether the actual potable water is contaminated. I'm not in
:denial here, just wanting to make sure there is a real issue. In the mean
:time, here's a thought -- relocate the people elsewhere. Staying in an old
:motor pool is probably not the wisest thing to do under any circumstances.
But what of Dr. Renante Basas, chief of the CHR forensic section, who said
the chemicals and coliform bacteria were found to be present in the water
in values exceeding the standard set by the World Health Organization ...?"
And who also was quoted in saying that, "the clinical manifestation exhibited
by the patients were consistent with chemical exposure ..."
I just love how one parses the context of these quotes, and weave them into
nothing more than subjective reasoning to justify the exoneration of the
US military who appears to have negligently left "toxics" in these
aforementioned areas : )
:An interesting comment which shows how biased people are when describing the
:dangers of the contamination comes from the same article:
:*****
:Nerissa Sagum-Agustin, PTFBC Clark coordinator, said the US and Philippine
:government agencies responsible for the transfer of evacuees to Cabcom
:should be made liable for the exposing the victims to harm and ailments.
:''Cabcom evacuees have been victimized twice: first by the eruption, second
:and much worse, by exposure to toxic contamination,'' she said.
:*****
:Her claim that the toxic contamination is "much worse" than the 1000+ who
:died in Pinatubo is hyperbole, to say the least. (see
:http://www.inquirer.net/issues/jul99/jul06/news/news_3.htm, the same news
:source the quote was taken from)
Yes, of course it is a clear 'hyperbole,' yet no different from one who would
take the tact taking a shotgun approach with a barrage of non-sequiturs
and faulty analogies, then dismiss the counterpoint(s) when it is clear that
the previous point of contention was valid. Moreover, the acquiescence to
previous points raise is sufficient enough to validate, to some degree
those postulations. Nevertheless, it was a double-whammy to those who were
in the path of Pinatubo, and to later learn that they were living, suffering
and or dying in a contaminated area - There is no doubt about this.
:Here's another interesting quote from your citations:
Interesting analogy, in trying to paint the Filipino-people there as simians
(ie. monkeys), it does not inject humor but a only serves to enrage those who
are not privy to one's morbid sense of humor in light of disaster that was
Pinatubo and the deaths in Clark, nor the suggestion that life in the Philippines,
and in the context of this tragedy some cartoon to be ridiculed. Neverthless,
I've no personal knowledge of [families both 'legitimate,' or not] what their
true intents were, nor to what degree they knew of when it came to how much danger
they were in. However, it does speak volumes in their determination to continue
their children's education, despite of their lack of knowledge, or just plain
ignorance of the dangers which laid beneath them. Yet, the inference that they
were ultimately and singularly wrong, and that 'old Uncle Sugar' (ie. the U.S.)
is above consideration in this negligence is nothing more than a clear apologistic
attempt at patronization, if not a weak apologistic manner of discourse and
exchange.
:You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up any toxic
:contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP compensates the US
:for the "tenant improvements". Any legal procedings against a former tenant
:would involve both from my experience. I also think the Philippine people
:should demand an accountinng of all monies paid by the US to the RP, whether
:"aid" or lease payments or whatever, for the bases. Get the US GAO to give
:the exact fugures, then hire an independent auditing firm to track the
:money. The politicians who stole much or most of this should then be
:prosecuted and attempts made to recover the monies.
"The RP should compensate the US for tenant improvements?" That's a
good one! Heck, when in fact both the US and the RP are BOTH defendants
in this case, and the crux of this entire thread. Hmmmm ...Quite a narrow,
yet slippery slope we tread as one loses sight of the context, then
commits to a hyperbolic manner in the deployment of faulty analogies,
then methodically and subjectively : )
:My sympathies go to the people whose lives were devastated by Pinatubo and
:now a possible health risk. I draw the line at placing all the blame on the
:USG and military, and do not believe that a knee-jerk response is in order.
:First, determine the facts, then address the issues without anti-American
:rhetoric and finger pointing.
Yes, this was NOT about "anti-American rhetoric," but of a group of people
seeking compensation for an alleged wrong ...How quickly some forget while
in the process of reacting with fallacies which transcend reason and
objectivity. Yes, this is about a class-action suit that is suing not
only the U.S. but the R.P. as well ...Please review the aforementioned
declaration(s), since it appears to the more astute, that it isn't all
that sincere.
:I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows the
:Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers of WW2 who
:lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and enslaving
:Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that transaction, too.
:Randy
This non-sequitur is quite an affront to any Filipino who might beg to differ.
In fact, I know of no 'monuments commemorating Japanese soldiers of WW2' in
the Philippines [perhaps I myself can be enlightened here]. But, that is what
this is all about ...The despise for Filipinos who coddled, or even collaborated
with the Japanese in what ...1941-45 perhaps? This is the year 2000, and in
the height of the great U.S. western expansion and occupation/imperialization
of the Philippines [1945-1991], there are Filipinos who are seeking compensation
from a matter that has nothing to do with some Japanese monument, nor the "killing,
maiming, torturing, raping and enslaving (of) Filipinos," however this sort of
alleged unjustified negligence and ignorance of both governments just might as
well be ranked up there with the Japanese-military and government of the time
(underscore 'military') ...Not her people, against the Filipino-people.
Yet again, another non-sequitur is duly noted.
But it is clear that one sees nothing wrong with the deaths in Clark, simply
because of the assumption that the exoneration of US government/military are
above even this minute level of adjudication when it comes to a sovereign
nation's people who only want their case heard and tried in a court of law.
Just JT
"Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
> You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up any
toxic
> contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP compensates the US
> for the "tenant improvements".
--------------
Hey Randy, I must say you've compleatly lost the plot here. A landowner
never pays a tenant for improvements done by tenant to any property. The
improvements or additional structures become the property of the landlord
upon vacation of tenant. I'm no solicitor but I know that this is standard
clause in any lease contract.
--
Talk to me at
Johnn...@Hotmail.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bastos Kano
>
> Oh? The effort/action to at least care and provide assistance for the
> afflicted and infirmed does not fit one's criteria an "actionable one?"
> IOW - Ignore it? Interesting postulation.
I do not consider suing for $5 million per plaintiff "care and ...
assistance." And how much of this will actually end up in the hands of the
victims? I'm sure Manong Ben will correct me here if I am wrong, but in
most cases where specific damage is alleged, you start with a reasonable
assesment of medical costs, lost wages, etc. When my mother died of medical
malpractice in 1975, we learned that her life had little "value" because she
was "just" a mother and wife. Philippine law tends to follow US, so I
suspect this would be similar. Perhaps all of this vast sum is in the form
of punitive damages, which I believe is usually left for the judge or jury
to decide. Lawyers often shoot for the moon hoping for a "nuisance"
settlement of a fraction of the costs, but so often in the class action
suits the victims get little or nothing. This just smells to me like a suit
where grave and impossible to prove allegations are made, an enormous demand
is made (along with the threat of huge international embarassment -- which,
ironically, the US is the only country to worry about), and a settlement is
made.
I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that just
because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
today). Find the facts. Clean the mess. Reasonably compensate any
demonstrated victims. I know it's not that simple, but it sorta boils down
to that in my mind.
>
> Ah, but in an -independent- study: "...Weston International reported that
> 14 sites inside the economic zone are contaminated with hyrdocarbons,
> benzyne and other cancer-causing elements. These sites include the former
> Clark Motorpool, Corrosion Control Area, Defense Reutilization and
Marketing
> Office, Mabalacat landfill, Fire Department and Training Area, Wagner
Aviation,
> Civil Engineering Entomology Area, and former Clark base hospital..." all
of
> which were within the realm, and control of the US military while there."
Ever visit a bar in the US? A gas station? Or a restaurant? Almost every
public site you can think of (at least in California) has a sign warning of
the presence of toxic chemicals known to cause cancer. The presence of
contaminents in today's world is frightening, but not necesarilly dangerous
or actionable. My wife is an organic gardener [here's another of my
non-sequetirs! ; ) ] who goes ballistic if I spray ants with Raid. In her
mind, these contaminants will kill us or our children. To a degree she is
right -- we'd be better off without 'em. But they are everywhere. Is the
contamination enough to cause major health problems? Sometimes yes,
sometimes no. Even if you cite higher than mandated levels of toxics, it
doesn't mean that people will be exposed to them in great enough quantities
to cause harm. It has to be viewed within the context of the entire local
population to see if there is a spike in certain medical maladies. One
Pentagon spokesperson, addressing the alliance casualties during the Gulf
War, pointed out that the number actually was lower than those expected from
500,000 troops at their home bases. If you focus on the illnesses, and do
not take them in context, you may get a false read.
> And here we possibly have the RP government at odds with a group whose
> interests are in and of those who were 'contaminated,' and for the
> sake of objectivity perhaps there is an 'agenda' with regard to both.
Agreed. Both sides have their agendas. One, I fear, is heavily influenced
by the anti-American (or at least anti-US military) perspective, while the
other is trying to minimize financial responsibility (although I'm not sure
where the RP CDC fits in). One cannot believe either's statements on the
face of it.
> But what of Dr. Renante Basas, chief of the CHR forensic section, who said
> the chemicals and coliform bacteria were found to be present in the water
> in values exceeding the standard set by the World Health Organization
...?"
> And who also was quoted in saying that, "the clinical manifestation
exhibited
> by the patients were consistent with chemical exposure ..."
Valid points. But a man found with a bullet hole in his head may show a
"clinical manifestation of a self-inflicted gunshot wound" when in reality
his wife whacked him for spraying Raid in her garden! Let Manong Ben get
her on the stand, and within seconds he would have her acknowledging that
these symptoms might also be consistent with other factors, or not out of
line for the population living immediately outside the contaminated area.
> I just love how one parses the context of these quotes, and weave them
into
> nothing more than subjective reasoning to justify the exoneration of the
> US military who appears to have negligently left "toxics" in these
> aforementioned areas : )
I do not wish to exonerate the US military of anything; I merely caution
against a rush to judgement. If my points show a different perspective
without showing the counter view, it is because the presentations here so
far were all biased in favor of a railroading of the USG for creating a
billion-dollar health nightmare.
> :Nerissa Sagum-Agustin, PTFBC Clark coordinator, said the US and
Philippine
> :government agencies responsible for the transfer of evacuees to Cabcom
> :should be made liable for the exposing the victims to harm and ailments.
> :''Cabcom evacuees have been victimized twice: first by the eruption,
second
> :and much worse, by exposure to toxic contamination,'' she said.
> :*****
> :Her claim that the toxic contamination is "much worse" than the 1000+ who
> :died in Pinatubo is hyperbole, to say the least. (see
> :http://www.inquirer.net/issues/jul99/jul06/news/news_3.htm, the same news
> :source the quote was taken from)
>
> Yes, of course it is a clear 'hyperbole,' yet no different from one who
would
> take the tact taking a shotgun approach with a barrage of non-sequiturs
> and faulty analogies, then dismiss the counterpoint(s) when it is clear
that
> the previous point of contention was valid. Moreover, the acquiescence to
> previous points raise is sufficient enough to validate, to some degree
> those postulations. Nevertheless, it was a double-whammy to those who
were
> in the path of Pinatubo, and to later learn that they were living,
suffering
> and or dying in a contaminated area - There is no doubt about this.
You state that the point is clear -- that evacuees have been victimized
twice. You have, therefore, without any conclusive scientific evidence,
convicted the USG (and the RPG) of "victimizing" these people. No one has
established a direct causal effect between measured levels of contamination
and any physical manefestations. They may well exist, but they have only
been alleged, not proven. There is no discussion of baseline data, of
quantifiable medical evidence of what similar levels of these specific
contaminents have been proved to cause in the past. There is only the
assertion -- there are certain levels of contamination, and a doctor working
for the CHR says some 17 people he evaluated showed symptoms that might be
caused by mercury poisoning. Am I so wrong to say that all the "get those
toxic-dumping $#@!s" positions are perhaps premature and biased?
> Interesting analogy, in trying to paint the Filipino-people there as
simians
> (ie. monkeys), it does not inject humor but a only serves to enrage those
who
> are not privy to one's morbid sense of humor in light of disaster that was
> Pinatubo and the deaths in Clark, nor the suggestion that life in the
Philippines,
> and in the context of this tragedy some cartoon to be ridiculed.
Oh, please! You are smart enough to know that is not what I said or meant.
It was probably the wrong analogy, because it doesn't clearly express my
thoughts, but I love the imagery and have been looking for a place to use
it... My intent was to show that if someone does not take steps to protect
themselves from what they claim others are doing to them, they are at least
part of the problem. IMHO, too many people in the RP (including Puno and
his buddy, who are visiting the US now) always point to some outside
explanation as to why things are the way they are -- it was the Spanish, or
the Americans, or the Catholic Church, or the Asian financial crisis, or the
prior administration. Personal responsibility never seems to enter into the
equation. It's a growing problem in California, arguably the most litigious
state in the union. As long as you can point to some outside source, it
saves you from having to solve the problem yourself. It is a "victim
mentality", which excuses you from taking control of your own life. The
only "monkey" in my life is my Kanoy son, who at 2 1/2 thinks he should be
able to slide across limbs like Tarzan. To extend your critique of my
analogy to having me ridicule not only the deaths and suffering at Clark but
to say that I feel all life in the RP is a cartoon is, well, imaginative. I
believe that you were simply caught up in your flowing rhetoric, as I often
am, and went a few steps too far.
Neverthless,
> I've no personal knowledge of [families both 'legitimate,' or not] what
their
> true intents were, nor to what degree they knew of when it came to how
much danger
> they were in. However, it does speak volumes in their determination to
continue
> their children's education, despite of their lack of knowledge, or just
plain
> ignorance of the dangers which laid beneath them. Yet, the inference that
they
> were ultimately and singularly wrong, and that 'old Uncle Sugar' (ie. the
U.S.)
> is above consideration in this negligence is nothing more than a clear
apologistic
> attempt at patronization, if not a weak apologistic manner of discourse
and
> exchange.
Show me where I have once said the USG was above consideration in this
negligence. "Didn't happen." Just because I am against railroading the USG
or RPG does not mean I find them without fault.
> :You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up any
toxic
> :contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP compensates the US
> :for the "tenant improvements". Any legal procedings against a former
tenant
> :would involve both from my experience. I also think the Philippine
people
> :should demand an accountinng of all monies paid by the US to the RP,
whether
> :"aid" or lease payments or whatever, for the bases. Get the US GAO to
give
> :the exact fugures, then hire an independent auditing firm to track the
> :money. The politicians who stole much or most of this should then be
> :prosecuted and attempts made to recover the monies.
>
> "The RP should compensate the US for tenant improvements?" That's a
> good one! Heck, when in fact both the US and the RP are BOTH defendants
> in this case, and the crux of this entire thread. Hmmmm ...Quite a
narrow,
> yet slippery slope we tread as one loses sight of the context, then
> commits to a hyperbolic manner in the deployment of faulty analogies,
> then methodically and subjectively : )
So many here believe strongly that the US presence in the RP was entirely
without positive impact. I take exception to that, not out of personal
knowledge but out of common sense. Where did all the material come from to
build the bases? Shipped in from stateside? Probably not. Probably some
was local. Meaning money in local hands. Labor? Maybe Seabees did it all,
but I doubt that. I believe it was Manong Ben who stated that some 50,000
people were employed in some capacity by the bases. I recognize that many
were "comfort women" and purveyors of booze and other vices, but others were
undoubtedly in more mundane positions. Soldiers did not just hoor and
booze, they also patronized restaurants, bought clothes, etc. The
facilities erected were not all contaminated beyond use -- so far as I read,
only the people living in the motor pool have (to date) reported health
problems. There is a great value in the bases themselves which so many
would dismiss. "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft
interred with their bones." And no, I am not saying the RP is a
Shakespearean tragedy! ; )
> :My sympathies go to the people whose lives were devastated by Pinatubo
and
> :now a possible health risk. I draw the line at placing all the blame on
the
> :USG and military, and do not believe that a knee-jerk response is in
order.
> :First, determine the facts, then address the issues without anti-American
> :rhetoric and finger pointing.
>
> Yes, this was NOT about "anti-American rhetoric," but of a group of people
> seeking compensation for an alleged wrong ...How quickly some forget while
> in the process of reacting with fallacies which transcend reason and
> objectivity. Yes, this is about a class-action suit that is suing not
> only the U.S. but the R.P. as well ...Please review the aforementioned
> declaration(s), since it appears to the more astute, that it isn't all
> that sincere.
Just because you don't agree with me, it's not reasonable to say I write
fallacies that transcend reason and objectivity. No one in this NG is
objective, as that is an unobtainable position. You will always have a
perspective on issues, just as you have a visual perspective on the world.
We are in agreement that this is an "alleged wrong". Your position is that
a) there are contaminants that caused health problems and death and b) the
US is responsible for that and should pay what is being asked and clean the
mess up. My position is that a) there are contaminants, whose extent and
impact are not known, b) there have been reported health problems, c) many
parties, including the victims, share responsibility, and to go after the
deep pockets is not necessarily the route of justice, and d) every attempt
to correct the situation should be made. I also believe that the intense
anti-US military bias is not an accurate reflection of the historical
situation (which would have NO decent people in the US military and NO
benefit of the US forces in the RP). It is a different thing to say that,
on balance, the negatives of US bases outweighed the positives to the people
of the Philippines, than to say there was no benefit involved. I know that
the bases are being used today, and not just to house 400 refugees. Too
many people say the US bases did no good, and that is simply not true.
As an American, I get tired of the world slinging mud at the US, at our
culture and our efforts. They are always attacking on one hand and coming
to us (like Estrada) with their hands out. No matter what we give, we will
always be called pikers and those we give to will resent that we did not
give more. I get tired of people moving to the US to get the benefits of
our culture and then attacking us from the comfort of their safe and cozy
homes. No other country in recorded history has tried to do more for other
nations. Much of this has been misguided, but the histories of all nations
are filled with arrogance and oversight. The people and government of the
US are envied for our wealth and achievements, emulated by all, and decried
by most. It gets very tiring after a while.
> This non-sequitur is quite an affront to any Filipino who might beg to
differ.
> In fact, I know of no 'monuments commemorating Japanese soldiers of WW2'
in
> the Philippines [perhaps I myself can be enlightened here]. But, that is
what
> this is all about ...The despise for Filipinos who coddled, or even
collaborated
> with the Japanese in what ...1941-45 perhaps? This is the year 2000, and
in
> the height of the great U.S. western expansion and
occupation/imperialization
> of the Philippines [1945-1991], there are Filipinos who are seeking
compensation
> from a matter that has nothing to do with some Japanese monument, nor the
"killing,
> maiming, torturing, raping and enslaving (of) Filipinos," however this
sort of
> alleged unjustified negligence and ignorance of both governments just
might as
> well be ranked up there with the Japanese-military and government of the
time
> (underscore 'military') ...Not her people, against the Filipino-people.
>
> Yet again, another non-sequitur is duly noted.
Just because you do not understand or agree with something, does not make it
a non-sequitir. I have trouble following your line of thought in the big
paragraph above, but assume it is my limited command of English and
analytical skills that cause the problem.
> But it is clear that one sees nothing wrong with the deaths in Clark,
simply
> because of the assumption that the exoneration of US government/military
are
> above even this minute level of adjudication when it comes to a sovereign
> nation's people who only want their case heard and tried in a court of
law.
You know, I do see something wrong with the deaths (both of them as
reported) in Clark. I see the wrong in the deaths every year in Metro
Manila when students fall into open sewers during the rainy season. I see
the wrong in children killed because they are allowed to ride on the roof
luggage racks on buses. I see the wrong when 4000 people can die on the
Dona Paz, and 51 die in August 1999 on another ferry, and 44 die in December
1999 on another ferry, and 139 die in April 2000 on yet another ferry. I
see the wrong in the deaths during election time because hired thugs cannot
change a voter's mind. It is tragic how cheap life is in the Philippines.
I see the wrong in Erap asking for more money for killing machines when he
should be asking for toxic cleanup funds. But I can also understand the
feelings of the US military and the USG who felt, rightly or wrongly, that
they were doing something for the RP as well as themselves with the
Philippine bases, then were told they were not wanted. You have to abandon
your buildings, roads, communications infrastructure that you built and
maintained. You are later told that you must clean up some messes you left
behind so the people and government who kicked you out can use them safely.
Can you imagine the outcry that would have resulted from the military's
saying, "Fine, we'll leave, but we will return this land to the condition it
was before we came." That would have been outrageous, because the people of
the Philippines have a tradition of using USG leavings, whether jeeps or the
honeycomb metal sheets used for temporary roads and airfields left over from
WW2 that my family still sells for beer money.
But, hey, I'm just another ugly (veeery ugly) American.
Randy
Tansong Isda
> :I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows the
> :Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers of WW2 who
> :lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and enslaving
> :Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that transaction, too.
> :Randy
>
> This non-sequitur is quite an affront to any Filipino who might beg to differ.
> In fact, I know of no 'monuments commemorating Japanese soldiers of WW2' in
> the Philippines [perhaps I myself can be enlightened here]. But, that is what
> this is all about ...The despise for Filipinos who coddled, or even collaborated
> with the Japanese in what ...1941-45 perhaps? This is the year 2000, and in
> the height of the great U.S. western expansion and occupation/imperialization
> of the Philippines [1945-1991], there are Filipinos who are seeking compensation
> from a matter that has nothing to do with some Japanese monument, nor the "killing,
> maiming, torturing, raping and enslaving (of) Filipinos," however this sort of
> alleged unjustified negligence and ignorance of both governments just might as
> well be ranked up there with the Japanese-military and government of the time
> (underscore 'military') ...Not her people, against the Filipino-people.
Since this came up, I think I should clarify. The Japanese people and not the govt.
requested that monuments of their relatives be erected where they fell and buried
(supposedly), this is how Japanese honor their dead and has nothing to do with the
invasion. Their traditition (the Japanese) insist on taking most of the bones home, but
they leave some parts and an obelisk is placed on the site.
You will find this now all over the country and throughout the Pacific. The relatives
visit the site and pray. Randy, it isn't what you think, it is allowed for reasons of
respect for the dead and not giving any suggestion of heroism to their existence.
>
>
> Yet again, another non-sequitur is duly noted.
>
> But it is clear that one sees nothing wrong with the deaths in Clark, simply
> because of the assumption that the exoneration of US government/military are
> above even this minute level of adjudication when it comes to a sovereign
> nation's people who only want their case heard and tried in a court of law.
>
> l8R
>
> - Dominic
>
> --
>
> Copyright © 2000 C5GP All Rights Reserved
> In Consistent Pursuit of ISO 9006 Compliance
I will stay away from this discussion, you two are going nicely at it.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
> Since this came up, I think I should clarify. The Japanese people and not the govt.
> requested that monuments of their relatives be erected where they fell and buried
> (supposedly), this is how Japanese honor their dead and has nothing to do with the
> invasion. Their traditition (the Japanese) insist on taking most of the bones home, but
> they leave some parts and an obelisk is placed on the site.
> You will find this now all over the country and throughout the Pacific. The relatives
> visit the site and pray. Randy, it isn't what you think, it is allowed for reasons of
> respect for the dead and not giving any suggestion of heroism to their existence.
I suppose those who committed horrendous actrocities/crimes, in a time of war, in the
Philippines, had people who loved them back home too.
Tenks for the clarification, T'song.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
>I do not consider suing for $5 million per plaintiff "care and ...
>assistance." And how much of this will actually end up in the hands of the
>victims? I'm sure Manong Ben will correct me here if I am wrong, but in
>most cases where specific damage is alleged, you start with a reasonable
>assesment of medical costs, lost wages, etc. When my mother died of medical
>malpractice in 1975, we learned that her life had little "value" because she
>was "just" a mother and wife. Philippine law tends to follow US, so I
>suspect this would be similar. Perhaps all of this vast sum is in the form
>of punitive damages, which I believe is usually left for the judge or jury
>to decide. Lawyers often shoot for the moon hoping for a "nuisance"
>settlement of a fraction of the costs, but so often in the class action
>suits the victims get little or nothing. This just smells to me like a suit
>where grave and impossible to prove allegations are made, an enormous demand
>is made (along with the threat of huge international embarassment -- which,
>ironically, the US is the only country to worry about), and a settlement is
>made.
And who are 'you,' if anyone for that fact to say that their case is not
valid? Are you proposing that the plaintiffs simply drop this case, without
compensation, nor aid in spite of what has been learned to date regarding
their health and welfare because you allege (from personal experience in
the US) that they will get "little or nothing?" A bunch of assumptions,
but let's deal with them one by one shall we?
1. We aren't talking about medical malpractice here
2. We are talking about how the US government/military left behind
toxics which were ascertained accordingly
3. We are talking about how the US government and the RP government
were negligent and inept in addressing this problem early on
4. We are talking about how it was learned that certain heath risks
and dangers were the result, or end product of these findings
5. We are talking about how people had died, and or are suffering
and that they are seeking compensation
Now how difficult is that to fathom without sending and filling this
exchange non-sequitur-filled-hyperboles? Again, this is not about
what had happened in 'your' case with regard to your kin, yet it
is somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Yes, Philippine law 'tends
to follow the US,' in it's precedence and juris prudence, but again
in this case, and the one you've cited are as similar, as they are
dissimilar in that you are dealing with two-sovereign nations, which
are defendants in a case against a number of people (Filipino) who
are seeking compensation for their sufferage - Not a civil suit, by
a single plaintiff, nor in the US. Moreover, it's a mistake to
correllate the two in attempting to establish a reasonable position
in contention, since again this case is in the RP.
>I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that just
>because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
>too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
>investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
>upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
>today). Find the facts. Clean the mess. Reasonably compensate any
>demonstrated victims. I know it's not that simple, but it sorta boils down
>to that in my mind.
Well your comment below surely suggested it:
o "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine whether
there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected range
of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
statement, but not an actionable one ..."
re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
Yet, permit me to expand on this by adding that you did in fact read the
articles I offered to bring you up to speed on this issue, but with regard
to this ...Well, shall I say it does indeed capture the crux of your opinion
in and of this case?
>Ever visit a bar in the US? A gas station? Or a restaurant? Almost every
>public site you can think of (at least in California) has a sign warning of
>the presence of toxic chemicals known to cause cancer. The presence of
>contaminents in today's world is frightening, but not necesarilly dangerous
>or actionable. My wife is an organic gardener [here's another of my
>non-sequetirs! ; ) ] who goes ballistic if I spray ants with Raid. In her
>mind, these contaminants will kill us or our children. To a degree she is
>right -- we'd be better off without 'em. But they are everywhere. Is the
>contamination enough to cause major health problems? Sometimes yes,
>sometimes no. Even if you cite higher than mandated levels of toxics, it
>doesn't mean that people will be exposed to them in great enough quantities
>to cause harm. It has to be viewed within the context of the entire local
>population to see if there is a spike in certain medical maladies. One
>Pentagon spokesperson, addressing the alliance casualties during the Gulf
>War, pointed out that the number actually was lower than those expected from
>500,000 troops at their home bases. If you focus on the illnesses, and do
>not take them in context, you may get a false read.
Your brush is getting bigger, and I'm not going 'detract' in the way of
my position in this matter, by going into some tangental opinion regarding
the Gulf War and the allegations put forth by the soldier who, might I
say had their day-in-court and before a Congressional panel; Which of
course it appears that you would want nothing of the sort with regard
to these Filipinos in Clark to have. BTW - With regard to the semantics
and the hyperbole regarding the term 'toxic,' there are without doubt
levels of toxicity all around us. Some are minimal, some are just downright
deadly. Now, is it your position that the EPA do away with such warnings,
since you feel that people are just "paranoid" by nature. Moreover,
would you put a motion to the legislature in CA, or even in Washington,
District of Con-Men, for a referendum in the repeal of the warning labels
on cigarattes or on trucks carrying hazardous nuclear waste ...Say, down
I-880, or allowing them to pass through residential neigborhoods?
Hmmm.
>Agreed. Both sides have their agendas. One, I fear, is heavily influenced
>by the anti-American (or at least anti-US military) perspective, while the
>other is trying to minimize financial responsibility (although I'm not sure
>where the RP CDC fits in). One cannot believe either's statements on the
>face of it.
This glimpse of objectivity is inspiring : )
>Valid points. But a man found with a bullet hole in his head may show a
>"clinical manifestation of a self-inflicted gunshot wound" when in reality
>his wife whacked him for spraying Raid in her garden! Let Manong Ben get
>her on the stand, and within seconds he would have her acknowledging that
>these symptoms might also be consistent with other factors, or not out of
>line for the population living immediately outside the contaminated area.
Huh? What does Manong Ben have to do with this meandering analogy
involving a disgrutled wife and a can of Raid(tm).
>I do not wish to exonerate the US military of anything; I merely caution
>against a rush to judgement. If my points show a different perspective
>without showing the counter view, it is because the presentations here so
>far were all biased in favor of a railroading of the USG for creating a
>billion-dollar health nightmare.
I agree with the 'non-rush to judgement,' yet the feeling I get in that
you believe that this class-action suit against both the RP and US gov't
of and for the people who have suffered in Clark is not valid - And now
you somewhat attach a price of those who have died as a result of this
faux pas.
>You state that the point is clear -- that evacuees have been victimized
>twice. You have, therefore, without any conclusive scientific evidence,
>convicted the USG (and the RPG) of "victimizing" these people. No one has
>established a direct causal effect between measured levels of contamination
>and any physical manefestations. They may well exist, but they have only
>been alleged, not proven. There is no discussion of baseline data, of
>quantifiable medical evidence of what similar levels of these specific
>contaminents have been proved to cause in the past. There is only the
>assertion -- there are certain levels of contamination, and a doctor working
>for the CHR says some 17 people he evaluated showed symptoms that might be
>caused by mercury poisoning. Am I so wrong to say that all the "get those
>toxic-dumping $#@!s" positions are perhaps premature and biased?
Oh, I C it's now the "USG and the RPG" who are co-defendants in this. I'm
glad to see that you're coming around : ) And with regard to the
'scientific evidence,' the 'causal effect,' etc. et al., that will be
brought forth, and entered into the record and proceedings of the TRIAL,
which I might add that you have take the position to oppose. Moreover,
it's not incumbent of me to make the case for the plaintiff (they've
got their own counsel), however I am exhibiting just where you err in
assuming that this is nothing more than a frivilous case brought on
by "anti-American rhetoric," which you've clammored about throught this
entire exchange. And now that I see you recognize the defendants in
this case, I rest my case.
>Oh, please! You are smart enough to know that is not what I said or meant.
Oh?
>It was probably the wrong analogy, because it doesn't clearly express my
>thoughts, but I love the imagery and have been looking for a place to use
>it... My intent was to show that if someone does not take steps to protect
>themselves from what they claim others are doing to them, they are at least
>part of the problem. IMHO, too many people in the RP (including Puno and
>his buddy, who are visiting the US now) always point to some outside
>explanation as to why things are the way they are -- it was the Spanish, or
>the Americans, or the Catholic Church, or the Asian financial crisis, or the
>prior administration. Personal responsibility never seems to enter into the
>equation. It's a growing problem in California, arguably the most litigious
>state in the union. As long as you can point to some outside source, it
>saves you from having to solve the problem yourself. It is a "victim
>mentality", which excuses you from taking control of your own life. The
>only "monkey" in my life is my Kanoy son, who at 2 1/2 thinks he should be
>able to slide across limbs like Tarzan. To extend your critique of my
>analogy to having me ridicule not only the deaths and suffering at Clark but
>to say that I feel all life in the RP is a cartoon is, well, imaginative. I
>believe that you were simply caught up in your flowing rhetoric, as I often
>am, and went a few steps too far.
Interesting ...From Puno to the Catholic Church to Tarzan - Whatever. The
tone, and aspect of your reply in that instance was misconstruable, and
coupled with all your counter-points/contentions involving these Filipinos
in Clark ...And of course the level of certainty in your rebuttals was enough
'paint' an ugly picture. But what the heck, if it wasn't tendered in that
vein I presume you meant it in another way.
>Show me where I have once said the USG was above consideration in this
>negligence. "Didn't happen." Just because I am against railroading the USG
>or RPG does not mean I find them without fault.
Your opposition (please consider the verbiage of your rebuts in this exchange)
both comical and aloof, to having this trial held suggests it.
>So many here believe strongly that the US presence in the RP was entirely
>without positive impact. I take exception to that, not out of personal
>knowledge but out of common sense. Where did all the material come from to
>build the bases? Shipped in from stateside? Probably not. Probably some
>was local. Meaning money in local hands. Labor? Maybe Seabees did it all,
>but I doubt that. I believe it was Manong Ben who stated that some 50,000
>people were employed in some capacity by the bases. I recognize that many
>were "comfort women" and purveyors of booze and other vices, but others were
>undoubtedly in more mundane positions. Soldiers did not just hoor and
>booze, they also patronized restaurants, bought clothes, etc. The
>facilities erected were not all contaminated beyond use -- so far as I read,
>only the people living in the motor pool have (to date) reported health
>problems. There is a great value in the bases themselves which so many
>would dismiss. "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft
>interred with their bones." And no, I am not saying the RP is a
>Shakespearean tragedy! ; )
No it's more like a Three Stooges schtick : ) Seriously, the impact of
the US military/government's presence in the Philippines was not altogether
'evil.' Heck, there were so many positives in their time here to count,
however, when a mistake, oversight, goof or whatever you call it, when
it comes to Filipino-lives is had, would one be inclined to address it
immediately as opposed to waiting till the deformities, and infirmed
are paraded before the press and government to see? No, Bastos - "Life
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and Equal Justice For All" are
part of the American lexicon, but when it comes to addressing a
'responsibility' in 'coming to bat,' this just doesn't apply to the
Filipino who is pursuing this.
>Just because you don't agree with me, it's not reasonable to say I write
>fallacies that transcend reason and objectivity. No one in this NG is
>objective, as that is an unobtainable position. You will always have a
>perspective on issues, just as you have a visual perspective on the world.
Perhaps you got carried away when you shared this 'fallacy' in and of
an analogy:
o " The town next to where I live in CA has a big Chevron refinery.
Every few years, they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind
of emissions. Instantly thousands of residents go to local hospitals
and stand in line for hours for "treatment" so they can get in on
a settlement ..."
re: <RRlf5.60009$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
When in fact there were two mishaps within a year in Richmond, which you
did indeed paint with a very broad-brush? And being from that 'town
where you live next to,' I know of how potentially hazardous those
fires/discharges were ...With regard to 'toxicity' that is. Yet, you
went on to share that you are 'next' to it suggesting that there is
nothing wrong with taking a gulp of airborne chemicals, or for that
fact having one's kids play next to an oil refinery engulfed in
flames. Yes ...Your 'fallacy,' and non-sequitur has been duly noted.
>We are in agreement that this is an "alleged wrong". Your position is that
>a) there are contaminants that caused health problems and death and b) the
>US is responsible for that and should pay what is being asked and clean the
>mess up. My position is that a) there are contaminants, whose extent and
>impact are not known, b) there have been reported health problems, c) many
>parties, including the victims, share responsibility, and to go after the
>deep pockets is not necessarily the route of justice, and d) every attempt
>to correct the situation should be made. I also believe that the intense
>anti-US military bias is not an accurate reflection of the historical
>situation (which would have NO decent people in the US military and NO
>benefit of the US forces in the RP). It is a different thing to say that,
>on balance, the negatives of US bases outweighed the positives to the people
>of the Philippines, than to say there was no benefit involved. I know that
>the bases are being used today, and not just to house 400 refugees. Too
>many people say the US bases did no good, and that is simply not true.
Interesting, when in fact this exchange was nothing more than an exercise
in just how far one would go in coming to grips with a problem there in Inang
Bayan. Furthermore, since now you position has been clarified we'll see
how this pans out throughout the remainder of this thread.
>As an American, I get tired of the world slinging mud at the US, at our
>culture and our efforts. They are always attacking on one hand and coming
>to us (like Estrada) with their hands out. No matter what we give, we will
>always be called pikers and those we give to will resent that we did not
>give more. I get tired of people moving to the US to get the benefits of
>our culture and then attacking us from the comfort of their safe and cozy
>homes. No other country in recorded history has tried to do more for other
>nations. Much of this has been misguided, but the histories of all nations
>are filled with arrogance and oversight. The people and government of the
>US are envied for our wealth and achievements, emulated by all, and decried
>by most. It gets very tiring after a while.
I agree, as naturalized-US citizen, "I feel your pain," and as Filipino
who came into this world from within Inang Bayan, I feel your resentment.
But by the same token couldn't the same sentiment be held with regard to
the manner in which the US has handled, or in this case mishandled this
issue over Clark, and the many sites deemed hazardous? Isn't it degrading
when those who are other than Filipino by creed/culture, rub one's nose
in the stupidity & ineptitude that the RP government has wreaked upon the
Filipino people (inclusive of kin there)? Or making snide 'garbage remarks'
as to the conditions in the Philippines, which of course paints an unflattering
picture of the country and the people as a whole to the less astute? Yes,
from your perspective it's pretty singular, but from another it's something
that takes more than a little effort to come to grips with when addressing
narrow contentions and non-sequiturs. And it does get lame and old after
a while.
>Just because you do not understand or agree with something, does not make it
>a non-sequitir. I have trouble following your line of thought in the big
>paragraph above, but assume it is my limited command of English and
>analytical skills that cause the problem.
No, you've been interesting. Your reasoning is what makes this all worth
while, as well as mine, which to some degree can be confusing. But let me
share with you what a "non-sequitur" is:
" An argument with very weak or illogical support. Also, a
contradictory claim ..."
With emphasis on contradiction ...And heck, I'm not above tossing
non-sequiturs myself, unless provoked op 'cors ;-)
>You know, I do see something wrong with the deaths (both of them as
>reported) in Clark. I see the wrong in the deaths every year in Metro
>Manila when students fall into open sewers during the rainy season. I see
>the wrong in children killed because they are allowed to ride on the roof
>luggage racks on buses. I see the wrong when 4000 people can die on the
>Dona Paz, and 51 die in August 1999 on another ferry, and 44 die in December
>1999 on another ferry, and 139 die in April 2000 on yet another ferry. I
>see the wrong in the deaths during election time because hired thugs cannot
>change a voter's mind. It is tragic how cheap life is in the Philippines.
>I see the wrong in Erap asking for more money for killing machines when he
>should be asking for toxic cleanup funds. But I can also understand the
>feelings of the US military and the USG who felt, rightly or wrongly, that
>they were doing something for the RP as well as themselves with the
>Philippine bases, then were told they were not wanted. You have to abandon
>your buildings, roads, communications infrastructure that you built and
>maintained. You are later told that you must clean up some messes you left
>behind so the people and government who kicked you out can use them safely.
>Can you imagine the outcry that would have resulted from the military's
>saying, "Fine, we'll leave, but we will return this land to the condition it
>was before we came." That would have been outrageous, because the people of
>the Philippines have a tradition of using USG leavings, whether jeeps or the
>honeycomb metal sheets used for temporary roads and airfields left over from
>WW2 that my family still sells for beer money.
Be that as it may, and quite eloquently put I might add ...It doesn't mean
that thes Filipinos shouldn't have their day in court, and in upholding an
American legal tenet: "Innocent until proven guilty."
>But, hey, I'm just another ugly (veeery ugly) American.
>Randy
I don't doubt that one bit ...But again, you are being funny, no? : )
Bastos Kano
was even thinking I was confusing it with a monument in Hawaii, which would
be just as bizarre!). But I have a memory of seeing something like this in
my travels in the RP.
Randy
"Tansong Isda" <ta...@hindiginto.ito> wrote in message
news:397E91C...@hindiginto.ito...
> Since this came up, I think I should clarify. The Japanese people and not
the govt.
> requested that monuments of their relatives be erected where they fell and
buried
> (supposedly), this is how Japanese honor their dead and has nothing to do
with the
> invasion. Their traditition (the Japanese) insist on taking most of the
bones home, but
> they leave some parts and an obelisk is placed on the site.
> You will find this now all over the country and throughout the Pacific.
The relatives
> visit the site and pray. Randy, it isn't what you think, it is allowed for
reasons of
> respect for the dead and not giving any suggestion of heroism to their
existence.
>
> >
> >
> > Yet again, another non-sequitur is duly noted.
> >
> > But it is clear that one sees nothing wrong with the deaths in Clark,
simply
> > because of the assumption that the exoneration of US government/military
are
> > above even this minute level of adjudication when it comes to a
sovereign
> > nation's people who only want their case heard and tried in a court of
law.
> >
> > l8R
> >
> > - Dominic
> >
> > --
> >
> > Copyright © 2000 C5GP All Rights Reserved
> > In Consistent Pursuit of ISO 9006 Compliance
>
Bastos Kano
except for the following:
>
> 1. We aren't talking about medical malpractice here
>
> 2. We are talking about how the US government/military left behind
> toxics which were ascertained accordingly
>
> 3. We are talking about how the US government and the RP government
> were negligent and inept in addressing this problem early on
>
> 4. We are talking about how it was learned that certain heath risks
> and dangers were the result, or end product of these findings
> 5. We are talking about how people had died, and or are suffering
> and that they are seeking compensation
I agree. I would add
3.a. The victims themselves are at least partially responsible for the
extent of the crisis for not extricating themselves from the situation when
they had the choice.
I realize you do not go along with this, and that's OK. I was not involved
in the debate here over the garbage dump tragedy, but there are similarities
in that offers to relocate from the government were ignored. This IS a
liability case, and failure to take steps to mediate your own situation
usually come into play.
I am not ready to decide on the basis of the claims advanced that there is a
correlation between toxic levels and the reported deaths and illnesses. I'm
not saying that there isn't a definite causal relationship, I'm just not
ready to hang the USG and the RPG (the reason I hadn't included the RPG in
some earlier comments is that I did not realize until I re-read one of the
stories that both were named in the suit. My oversight). I'm just not sure
this is the proper way to go about it.
One of the things I have to wonder about is why nothing has been done to
clean up the situation. The attitude appears to be, "The USG made the mess,
they have to clean it up." When health risks are feared, you either should
isolate the problem or fix it and seek restitution. I know how you
appreciate my illustrations, so here's another one. Two good ol' boys in
the deep south are standing by a road on a steep hill drinking beer and
looking over a spot around a blind curve where the road has collapsed. A
car races by, and falls off the cliff. "Yep, Ed, we should prolly do sumpin
about that sink hole." Another car comes by and plunges off the cliff.
"There goes Sue Beth and our kids. Yep, we shore should do sumpin about
that."
I'm sure the response will be "it costs too much" or "why should we clean up
the USG's mess". If this happened in Japan, do you believe that they would
live with the problem indefinitely or take action? The expense is a matter
of governmental priorities; if too much is stolen by politicians, they have
a limited amount to actually use to fix the country. My impression of the
RP is a decaying infrastructure that is getting worse by the year. On an
individual level Filipinos can fix about anything (examples come to mind
include rewinding generators and fixing VCRs that Americans would simply
throw out and replace), but so little seems to get done on a grander scale.
I believe that the knowledge (and certainly the manpower) to clean up the
messes exists within the RP, and could be done much more quickly and cheaply
than if US experts are called in.
Will a class action suit result in the reclamation of the toxics and the
compensation of those who suffered? I have my doubts. It may actually
backfire and either delay or end hopes of honest reparations. This is more
properly a matter between governments, IMO. If it is handled with bluster
and acrimony ("You American SOBs! Look what you did to our precious
environment!") don't expect to get far very fast. That just causes the
other side to get their back up and say "You ungrateful SOBs, why should we
help you?" One secret to working with the US people and government is that
we want to think of ourselves as the "good guys", but we don't like to be
pushed. As my Dad would say, you attract more flies with honey than
vinegar. Get a few Congressmen and Representatives to push the issue and
you will get much faster action than any other way. Limit the liability
exposure of the government, cut out the lawyers and pols who will suck the
money out of any deal, and the US can pay for the cleanup and victim
compensation out of petty cash.
Randy
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
& Potatos' of this matter in Clark, and for the past week you've
made quite an impression on SCF with your confrontational assertation
and opinions regarding not only this thread/topic but others which
are just as entertaining. But with that said, and with this turn
around in your demeanor with regard to our exchange over the
"Toxics In Clark," I must say, this latest reply juxtaposed to your
initial contention and entry into the thread of discussion, is
a step back:
" One issue that is never addressed in these discussions about
how the horrid Americans abused their "lease" is the matter
of "improvements" made at the bases ...My guess is that the
US left improvements in the hundreds of millions of dollars,
if not billions ..."
re: <eA0f5.58347$i5.8...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
You then continued to suggest that the RP government 'pay,' the
US government for "rental improvements," as a condition in any
agreement by the US to assist, or take responsibility & charge
in the clean-up of these toxic-sites left behind by their military.
Heheheheh ...And with your endless barrage of non-sequiturs, however
notwithstanding, you've got what it takes to bring out issues
(and raise hackles), Bastos. Yet, with this recent reply it appears
that you are rational, and open to a more dignified, or even
'objective' manner of exchange, and I commend you for that.
Nevertheless, and simply a caveat emptor when it comes to Filipinos
(and this is just from my perspective & not on the behalf of all),
there are Flips out here on the Internet, or for that fact SCF
whom possess certain 'passions,' just as I do which when questioned,
or trifled with could be misconstrued in the most nastiest of manners,
and/or reprecussions possible ...But being the "Bastos Kano" that you
are, and whom I now know, I suppose it's tolerable in this case since
your willingness to know more of the Philippines, Filipinos, and the
culture is true, then we'll just have to endure your, vile and nasty
dispostion out here ;-)
Just don't 'attract' Filipinos with gasoline out here 'coz one just
might have a match, and besides have youse seen the price per
litre lately???
l8R
- Dominic
(Into the TCP-cloud w/bandwidth spared ...For the time being :)
--
Bastos Kano
I still believe the RP (or at least some people in the RP, whether pols or
businessmen) got a great deal from the US bases. I still believe that the
bases left behind represent a huge asset that the Filipinos can greatly
benefit from. I still believe that the RP has gotten, and still gets,
benefit from being protected by the US military presence and support. I
still do not believe that all American military personnel are scumbags who
despoiled the towns around their bases, any more than all RP soldiers are
bad (ever notice a sign on the military base, I believe it's on the road to
NIA, that says something to the effect of "You can trust us". I find it
alarming that any country would have to tell its citizens to trust the
military). I still believe that Filipinos, in the RP and in the US, who
spout anti-American feelings while taking advantage of American culture,
products, technology and lifestyle, are hypocrites and should be ashamed of
themselves. I still do not believe that all Americans are "ugly", look down
on Filipinos, or condescend. I still believe that people who continue to
place themselves and their children in danger are a part of the problem, not
the solution, and bear some responsibility. I still believe that Philippine
justice is capricious. I still believe that the vast hard-working
population of the RP is badly used by government, business and the judicial
system. I still believe that Filipinos who decry what is going on in the RP
and the plight of the people there yet who live in other countries and do
not do what they can to help their countryfolk are hypocrites. I still
believe that prejudice, no matter the practitioner, is wrong and should not
be granted as a cultural privelege, nor be accepted within the legal system.
I find most flames rather rediculous, and the threat of flames laughable.
Posts may annoy or piss me off, but thay can't hurt me. I have this thing
called a "life" which is separate from my ng interests. So many "flames"
that I have observed here and elsewhere that the authors thought were so
powerful were pretty childish. I also consider the threat of flames the
tactic of a teenager who has a hightened sense of power and invulnerability
imbued by the anonymity of the web.
What is telling to me is that several of the people here whose work I have
greatly appreciated in the past (and still appreciate) have taken umbrage to
what I have said. When JT tells me I am out in left field, I have to sit
up -- if *JT* thinks that, I'd better think about it! That cautions me that
it may be too late in the night for me to be posting coherently. Sometimes
my arguments get off track, or I stretch a point (perhaps to the point of
rediculousness), or I say an inappropriate thing. I am not alone in these
things. If someone here corrects me, or my position changes because I
readily admit I do not know everything (anyone who takes a concrete position
and adamantly refuses to budge in light of new evidence or ideas is a fool),
I do not worry about "saving face". You have to be wrong and admit it to
learn and move on.
And sometimes discussions simply become arguments, where nothing is
accomplished. Arguing may have positive benefits for venting, but it is not
a vahicle for mutual understanding. A wise person knows when to quit
worrying about proving his/her point and move on gracefully.
I post here not to impress people with how much I know but because certain
topics and ideas interest me. I continue to learn a great deal here from
the diverse likes of PusongPinoy2, Pietro Reyes, Manong Ben, JT, DSP,
tchiowa, CLEARAND10, et al. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say,
but my life is enriched by them, and everyone else who posts here. My wife
does not understand why I "waste" my time here [although she told me the
other day that she is worried that I am learning too much Tagalog here and
may take away her ability to discuss me with her sisters while I am in the
room ; )].
Gotta go. TRW beckons.
Randy
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
<acknowledging snippage in order to cut to the proverbial chase>
>I find most flames rather rediculous, and the threat of flames laughable.
>Posts may annoy or piss me off, but thay can't hurt me. I have this thing
>called a "life" which is separate from my ng interests. So many "flames"
>that I have observed here and elsewhere that the authors thought were so
>powerful were pretty childish. I also consider the threat of flames the
>tactic of a teenager who has a hightened sense of power and invulnerability
>imbued by the anonymity of the web.
You weren't around say a couple of years ago when SCF was nothing
more than scortched-earth strewn with smoldering remenants of a
culture-online gone berserk. Yes, they (flames) for the most
part are ridiculous and unproductive, but by the same token tests
the mettle of one's intellectual patience & conventional wisdom out
here. Heck, I'm as thin-skinned as the next fella out here, in that
I was being trolled sometime back with innuendos of physical threats
to me and my family by a little sh!t who will go unnamed (since
for the most part would he want it that way), and I learned from
that experience, and then some B^) ...And on anonimity, and prior to
that, there was a planned get together, yes right there in Fremont
by a bunch of SCF'ers. Then this 'anonymouse' troll comes along
threatening to shoot those planning to attend (ie. JT, Ed, Bam-bam,
et al.!)
Stupid? Criminal? Retarded? Yes, all the above. Nevertheless, I
like to think of SCF as a 'community' beyond my physical plain of
existence (reality?) even when dumb-ass-sh!t like this occurs; A
no-holds-barred classroom on life, and the Filipino-culture which
is it's core cirriculum. And I agree, I don't know it ALL either,
and that's why I'm here to participate and lurk, but when it comes
to something I believe in, or feel to share I do, and not just
because it's a Filipino-thing or not (since I'm a Filipino to begin
with), but I try to contribute & learn.
Yeah, maybe it's time to post the '94 (revised) SCF-FAQ again to see
just how far this USENET group has come in the past, what decade now?
>Gotta go. TRW beckons.
>Randy
You 'threatening me?' ...Hehehehee ;-)
l8R
- Dominic
[Southwest Air Flight XXXX for Oakland now boarding @ Gate 5]
Voltes V
>
> You weren't around say a couple of years ago when SCF was nothing
> more than scortched-earth strewn with smoldering remenants of a
> culture-online gone berserk.
That's the same thing I wanted to tell Randy after reading his very
recent posts. Randy, man, you haven't seen anything yet! Those
flames you'd been getting are actually still tame (and borders on
the polite side). One should never take things too seriously in
this newsgroup, do not even let yourself be pissed by any
posting. This newsgroup is actually good for discussing some
things but other posters will start getting personal and things
could go ugly from there. If I were you, don't join a thread with
people who don't have any sense of humor (and there are lots of them
here). You won't feel bad after reading replies to your posts and
it's safer (physically) that way. This newsgroup is supposed to
be for your leisure anyways.
> Then this 'anonymouse' troll comes along threatening to shoot
> those planning to attend (ie. JT, Ed, Bam-bam, et al.!)
Yeah, I remembered those times and things like that should not be
allowed to happen again (I do have some devices that could help trace
trolls that threaten violence). But since this is an unmoderated
newsgroup, who knows what will happen in the future...
In any case, tuloy pa rin ang ligaya!
Let's volt in!!
VV
--
For correspondence, send your email to:
volt...@netzero.net
Bastos Kano
of the greatest times I've had was when a few of us, from Germany, England,
Philly, and St. Louis all converged on New Jersey for a weekend. We took
the train to NY to visit another friend and totally scandalize Tavern on the
Green. I laughed more in those three days than anytime I can recall.
I started off the time in pre-arranged fashion with our host. I showed up
at his house wearing a clerical collar. He had previously told the others,
who arrived before me, that his minister was coming to by later that
evening. We had worked out a back story that this minister was suspected of
misappropriating church funds, and had even made a pass at his wife. When I
showed up, I'm glad I knew it was a setup because my host looked so upset
and disdainful of me (none of us had ever met). In front of these very
uncomfortable visitors I started making a pitch soliciting funds for some
charity. I asked that the check be made out in my name. Check in hand, I
asked everyone to join me in prayer, where I blessed the money and welcomed
the visitors to the US by their handles. We caught their looks on video,
and it was a sight to behold. They had grown more and more horrified as my
spiel went on ("We've heard about these crooked clergy in the US, but...").
I'm sure there are some here who cannot appreciate the humor of the role
play, and rightly accuse me of sacrilege. Reminds me of when a church
member accused me of sacrilege after a sermon. "That wasn't sacrilege,
ma'am. That was blasphemy."
Randy
"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
message news:WJ1g5.384072$MB.60...@news6.giganews.com...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:07:37 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <acknowledging snippage in order to cut to the proverbial chase>
>
> >I find most flames rather rediculous, and the threat of flames laughable.
> >Posts may annoy or piss me off, but thay can't hurt me. I have this
thing
> >called a "life" which is separate from my ng interests. So many "flames"
> >that I have observed here and elsewhere that the authors thought were so
> >powerful were pretty childish. I also consider the threat of flames the
> >tactic of a teenager who has a hightened sense of power and
invulnerability
> >imbued by the anonymity of the web.
>
> You weren't around say a couple of years ago when SCF was nothing
> more than scortched-earth strewn with smoldering remenants of a
> culture-online gone berserk. Yes, they (flames) for the most
> part are ridiculous and unproductive, but by the same token tests
> the mettle of one's intellectual patience & conventional wisdom out
> here. Heck, I'm as thin-skinned as the next fella out here, in that
> I was being trolled sometime back with innuendos of physical threats
> to me and my family by a little sh!t who will go unnamed (since
> for the most part would he want it that way), and I learned from
> that experience, and then some B^) ...And on anonimity, and prior to
> that, there was a planned get together, yes right there in Fremont
> by a bunch of SCF'ers. Then this 'anonymouse' troll comes along
> threatening to shoot those planning to attend (ie. JT, Ed, Bam-bam,
> et al.!)
>
> Stupid? Criminal? Retarded? Yes, all the above. Nevertheless, I
> like to think of SCF as a 'community' beyond my physical plain of
> existence (reality?) even when dumb-ass-sh!t like this occurs; A
> no-holds-barred classroom on life, and the Filipino-culture which
> is it's core cirriculum. And I agree, I don't know it ALL either,
> and that's why I'm here to participate and lurk, but when it comes
> to something I believe in, or feel to share I do, and not just
> because it's a Filipino-thing or not (since I'm a Filipino to begin
> with), but I try to contribute & learn.
>
> Yeah, maybe it's time to post the '94 (revised) SCF-FAQ again to see
> just how far this USENET group has come in the past, what decade now?
>
> >Gotta go. TRW beckons.
> >Randy
>
> You 'threatening me?' ...Hehehehee ;-)
>
>
>
>
> l8R
>
> - Dominic
> [Southwest Air Flight XXXX for Oakland now boarding @ Gate 5]
>
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
> I was very active in Compuserve for years before ngs came into fashion. One
> of the greatest times I've had was when a few of us, from Germany, England,
> Philly, and St. Louis all converged on New Jersey for a weekend. We took
> the train to NY to visit another friend and totally scandalize Tavern on the
> Green. I laughed more in those three days than anytime I can recall.
Ah, Compuserve ...One of the first ISPs to commercialize the 'Net & who
assigned a 9-digit number delimited by a period (.) which served as
a login ID (SSN?), and charged up the -wahzoo- for certain levels of
metered access. And Prodigy too, with regard to subscription costs.
Yes, those were the days when one actually 'paid' for information.
And yes, the 'chatroom' feature was a great attraction - When and IF you
were able to dialup and log on, that is.
> I started off the time in pre-arranged fashion with our host. I showed up
> at his house wearing a clerical collar. He had previously told the others,
> who arrived before me, that his minister was coming to by later that
> evening. We had worked out a back story that this minister was suspected of
> misappropriating church funds, and had even made a pass at his wife. When I
> showed up, I'm glad I knew it was a setup because my host looked so upset
> and disdainful of me (none of us had ever met). In front of these very
> uncomfortable visitors I started making a pitch soliciting funds for some
> charity. I asked that the check be made out in my name. Check in hand, I
> asked everyone to join me in prayer, where I blessed the money and welcomed
> the visitors to the US by their handles. We caught their looks on video,
> and it was a sight to behold. They had grown more and more horrified as my
> spiel went on ("We've heard about these crooked clergy in the US, but...").
I suppose one had to be there catch the humor ...
> I'm sure there are some here who cannot appreciate the humor of the role
> play, and rightly accuse me of sacrilege. Reminds me of when a church
> member accused me of sacrilege after a sermon. "That wasn't sacrilege,
> ma'am. That was blasphemy."
> Randy
Hmmm. In role playing, acting, etc. (esp. in IRC, USENET etc.) one walks a
fine line between hatespeech(tm), and anti-social behavior. What is funny
to some may be downright offensive to others, and one must select one's
audience with a whole lot of discretion, especially here on this medium
which for the most part is self-governed and akin to being on-the-street
which resembles a sort of choreographed anarchy : )
A cyber-jungle of sorts, with the monkeys, amazons (you babes know who
you are ;-), voyuers on safari, hunters ...And the hunted, and being read
in the 'art' of warfare, be it corporate, social or otherwise, yet I'm confident
that you are well aware of this. And speaking of 'chat' I'm bek in the timezone
and will be 'lurking' in Egroups around lunchtime ...Hope to see you then, as
well as others, who 'remember when...?'
re: <http://www.egroups.com/group/soc_culture_filipino/info.html>
l8R
- Dominic
Bastos Kano
> I suppose one had to be there catch the humor ...
Possibly.
>
> Hmmm. In role playing, acting, etc. (esp. in IRC, USENET etc.) one walks
a
> fine line between hatespeech(tm), and anti-social behavior. What is funny
> to some may be downright offensive to others, and one must select one's
> audience with a whole lot of discretion, especially here on this medium
> which for the most part is self-governed and akin to being on-the-street
> which resembles a sort of choreographed anarchy : )
>
> A cyber-jungle of sorts, with the monkeys, amazons (you babes know who
> you are ;-), voyuers on safari, hunters ...And the hunted, and being read
> in the 'art' of warfare, be it corporate, social or otherwise, yet I'm
confident
> that you are well aware of this. And speaking of 'chat' I'm bek in the
timezone
> and will be 'lurking' in Egroups around lunchtime ...Hope to see you then,
as
> well as others, who 'remember when...?'
Hmmm. Is cyberspace more sacrosanct than international TV? I may be wrong,
but it appears that you are mildly rebuking me for my poking fun at
Protestant clergy (of which I am a card carrying member, tho not
practicing). In the US, as elsewhere, the clergy are considered legitimate
targets of satire as are politicians, sports figures, lawyers, etc. The
humanity of each is amply demonstrated by their excesses or transgressions.
We lampoon the personages and actions of even the most respected and beloved
lay and religious leaders. We do draw the line at kidnapping, torturing and
killing them unlike some other, notably South American, countries (although
we have apparently trained some of these folks on US soil).
As I do not own a clerical collar, I had to borrow one from a friend, who
happens to be a Franciscan friar. He thought it great fun. It is the kind
of stunt we used to pull in Seminary, where my doctoral program was through
the Franciscan School of Theology but I seemed to spend most of my class
time at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology. The parties -- and
the humor -- were rougher and earthier at the Catholic schools, in part
because alchohol was allowed (it was not in the American Baptist Seminary of
the West, where I obtained my MDiv).
People have different sensitivities, and no topic of humor would be open if
one tried to avoid all controversial subjects. Participation in a wide open
NG requires that one be more tolerant of people who do not think exactly
like you do. It is one thing the www can bring to people. Should DSP
change his handle because of the Moslems here? Should people refrain from
fat jokes because it is something I am sensitive about? Should Erap's
drinking and womanizing not be joked about because some here find it less
than a laughing matter? In TRW, we tend to associate with people who hold
similar values and perceptions; on the web, we are confronted with people
who are diametrically opposed to our way of thinking. Remaining in such a
cyber community requires more tolerance of differences and setting aside
some automatic reactions.
I remain,
BK
Randy
tansong isda
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:42:07 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Agreed. Both sides have their agendas. One, I fear, is heavily influenced
> >by the anti-American (or at least anti-US military) perspective, while the
> >other is trying to minimize financial responsibility (although I'm not sure
> >where the RP CDC fits in). One cannot believe either's statements on the
> >face of it.
>
> This glimpse of objectivity is inspiring : )
Ahhhhh....finally, I would like to butt in again(while in tx, connecting through
Canadian newsnet), Americans who falls in love w/the people and culture of Pinoys
have this fear, of being excluded from Filipinization(fact is Filipinization is an
on going process, since being Filipino is really a new thing, in reality 100 yrs.
and growing). There is no basis to this fear, this lawsuit is actually American
inspired if not suggested by Filipino-Americans or Americans.
I have a lot of respect for the Amer'Kano who post here continously, because they
do care, their fear of being excluded from Filipino society(expressed often in
'anti' positions...), and I notice this, sure Philippines has displayed great
disregard for human life but let us separate issues based upon each case, let us
not muck the issues with other issues.
There are similar issues in the US, about similar situations, bases closing, and
toxic wastes left by the military.
tansong isda
In high school Phil. history class, this question was posed,"What does
extra-territorial mean?"....
All of my classmates answered a canned "pre-determined" answer, I question this
as an affront to Philippine sovereignty, my classmates wondered what it is I am
saying. But my teacher wondered aloud in class how an American citizen would
make this statement, I said, why not?
My citizenship has nothing to do with justice. Fair dealings is the only thing I
respect. Even when young.
Bastos Kano
"tansong isda" <ta...@hindiginto.ito> wrote in message
news:3982659D...@hindiginto.ito...
>
> Ahhhhh....finally, I would like to butt in again(while in tx, connecting
through
> Canadian newsnet), Americans who falls in love w/the people and culture of
Pinoys
> have this fear, of being excluded from Filipinization(fact is
Filipinization is an
> on going process, since being Filipino is really a new thing, in reality
100 yrs.
> and growing). There is no basis to this fear, this lawsuit is actually
American
> inspired if not suggested by Filipino-Americans or Americans.
>
because they
> do care, their fear of being excluded from Filipino society(expressed
often in
> 'anti' positions...), and I notice this, sure Philippines has displayed
great
> disregard for human life but let us separate issues based upon each case,
let us
> not muck the issues with other issues.
I have NO idea what you mean by a "fear, of being excluded from
Filipinization". I fell in love with a Filipina, not the Philippines or
Filipino culture. While I enjoy many aspects of Filipino culture,
particularly the extended family aspects (I hate fish of any kind -- no pun
or insult intended! ; ), so you know how I feel about much of Filipino
cooking; my wife learned to cook Chinese while in Malasia, which is more
pleasing to my palatte), I have no interest in "becoming" Filipino. While
my son is being raised with an appreciation of his heritage, including
learning Tagalog and yearly visits with his cousins, neither my wife nor I
have any intention of trying to make him "Filipino". He is an American,
born of two US citizens, and we have no pretentions otherwise.
It seems as if you say that Kanos are taking "anti-Filipino" stances because
they are afrain of NOT being accepted as Filipinos? I must not understand
what you are trying to say, though you repeat it in several posts. I know
of only one Kano here who wants to be a Filipino; most of the rest of us
have a respect for the culture and an interest in learning more about it,
but I don't see a lot of people wishing they had been born Filipinos or
whatever. I'm never going to be accepted as a Filipino even if I wanted it;
it is monumentally easier for a Filipino to become an American than an
American to become a Filipino. Even that is tough, as many here can
testify. I was heartened a few weeks back when I attended the graduation of
the UC Riverside Business school where a former employee (and my daughters
probable future husband) graduated summa. These kids will achive to a much
greater extent the goal of their parents (and grandparents, in some cases)
who were lured by the American dream. There were many Filipinos here,
notably accepted and appreciated by their peers of many races and cultural
backgrounds. As they go off into the business world they will help shatter
any negative stereotypes people have about Filipinos.
And yes, as you and other noted, some of my recent posts have been pretty
muddled. Not sure whether it was the long hours, the downers, the cough
syrup or the acid. But I'm MUCH netter bow! Back to norbal.
Randy
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
> "Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
> message news:Gdhg5.16228$5N1.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> I suppose one had to be there catch the humor ...
> Possibly.
> Hmmm. Is cyberspace more sacrosanct than international TV? I may be wrong,
> but it appears that you are mildly rebuking me for my poking fun at
> Protestant clergy (of which I am a card carrying member, tho not
> practicing) ...
Hindi 'ko alam. Malingaw ang iniisip mo ang, if you want to conduct a religious
crusade of sorts on this newsgroup over what is P.C. and what isn't, which I'm
sure there are some that are spoiling for an exchange ...Sige na. I was merely
offering up an observation which of course is nothing compared to what you serve
up in the way of intolerance, and preconcieved notions in the mindset of some,
if not many here. But I won't fault you for it, and FYI there is a call for
a Jihad in the RP - Wanna crack any jokes about that one? The shock-value
in what you want in terms of replies could be commensurate to what you are
seeking to 'enlighten' yourself with out here. But with your faux pas over
the Japanese soldiers graves in the RP in the suggestion that the country
is morally bankrupt, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
l8R
- Dominic
Bastos Kano
intollerant. Not a whole lot of sense in that.
Tell me, were you born pompous and without a sense of humor, or did it
evolve? Why pick on me when there are others here who flat out blaspheme
and preach intollerance here? Could it possibly be the color of my skin and
nationality? And you were talking about "intollerant"?
I never used the words "morally bankrupt". Yes, as anyone can see there are
real moral issues within the culture of the Philippines, many which trace
their roots into the influence of the Catholic Church. Forgive me if that
offends, but when a large part of the discussions here revolve around "What
is wrong with the RP and how can we change", the first step is an honest
recognition of the problems. To pretend that moral and ethical problems are
not at the heart of the problems in the RP is simply ignoring the facts. If
you wish to be greatly offended, I can elaborate on how I believe Catholic
imperialism has created and continues to foster pivotal problems.
Please forgive my misunderstanding of the Japanese grave markers. When I
come across a monument with a Japanese inscription in the RP, and my guide
says "That is a monument to Japanese who died here during WW2... they paid
a lot of money to someone to get that placed", I am led to believe that it
is a monument honoring the Japanese soldiers who did some not-so-nice things
to the Philippines and Filipinos, which is ironic to say the least. Like
placing plaques in Dachau honoring guards who died in the performance of
their duty.
It is a rather far leap to go from me openly lampooning my own denomination
to saying I will joke about the tragedies in the south. I am still
struggling with the issues there, which I why I have not posted in any of
those threads.
Just because you have taken a personal dislike to me, doesn't mean you have
the right to tell me what I am thinking on subjects never broached. What
will you claim for my thoughts next? I look forward to your clairvoyance.
Randy
"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
message news:hnch5.399884$MB.62...@news6.giganews.com...
> Bastos Kano <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote
in
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
:Let's see -- because I offend your religious sensibilities, I am
:intollerant. Not a whole lot of sense in that.
Pls. read my followup again, and where did I suggest that you 'offended
my religious sensibilities?' I merely stated that 'one had to be there
to catch the humor,' in and of whatever it was that you thought was punny.
Heck, and if I were there, perhaps I would of thought of it as ROFL hilarious.
:Tell me, were you born pompous and without a sense of humor, or did it
:evolve? Why pick on me when there are others here who flat out blaspheme
:and preach intollerance here? Could it possibly be the color of my skin and
:nationality? And you were talking about "intollerant"?
Oh come now, I'm not 'picking on you!' Heck, and look who is being "pompous,"
and without a "sense of humor?" I wasn't the one out here trolling Filipino
sensitivities, and sensibilities with:
o "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine whether
there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected range
of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
statement, but not an actionable one ..."
& who could ever forget ...
o "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
transaction, too."
re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
And the slough of non-sequiturs and fallacies which suggested that
this class action suit by those Filipinos in Clark, against the
US and RP gov'ts (which you later found out NOT to be borne of
"anti-American hate rhetoric"), is without merit, and whom you
would prefer not to seek compensation, or for that fact their
day-in-court with their grievance and allegation. And heck, I
found this early contention of your's not only preposterous, but
very, very amusing!
:I never used the words "morally bankrupt". Yes, as anyone can see there are
:real moral issues within the culture of the Philippines, many which trace
:their roots into the influence of the Catholic Church. Forgive me if that
:offends, but when a large part of the discussions here revolve around "What
:is wrong with the RP and how can we change", the first step is an honest
:recognition of the problems. To pretend that moral and ethical problems are
:not at the heart of the problems in the RP is simply ignoring the facts. If
:you wish to be greatly offended, I can elaborate on how I believe Catholic
:imperialism has created and continues to foster pivotal problems.
Ah, but Bastos, read your immortal words above, and the last sentence which
infers this. Please read it good, and what can be construed between the
lines. Moreover, I really don't care how you feel about the Catholic-church,
the Moslems, the Protestants, the Moonies, etc. etc. ad infinitum ...I would
like to delve even more as to what motivates you to come out here and spout
how this case in Clark is without merit, and how (in your own words), with
regard to those who *died* is "not an actionable one," in terms of assisting
and caring for those people.
:Please forgive my misunderstanding of the Japanese grave markers. When I
:come across a monument with a Japanese inscription in the RP, and my guide
:says "That is a monument to Japanese who died here during WW2... they paid
:a lot of money to someone to get that placed", I am led to believe that it
:is a monument honoring the Japanese soldiers who did some not-so-nice things
:to the Philippines and Filipinos, which is ironic to say the least. Like
:placing plaques in Dachau honoring guards who died in the performance of
:their duty.
Oh, Bastos, of course I can "forgive" you, but it's difficult to forget
when your passions (or impassions) get the best of you. Furthermore, it
did give us a glimpse of your disposition when it comes to dealing with
certain matters that are sensitive to others. And having said this,
and in retrospect of your opinion with regard to insensitivity over
whatever matters you deem funny, or amusing, wouldn't you say that your
dichotomy in and of this subject is ...How do I say this politely?
...Flawed?
:It is a rather far leap to go from me openly lampooning my own denomination
:to saying I will joke about the tragedies in the south. I am still
:struggling with the issues there, which I why I have not posted in any of
:those threads.
Interesting ...But permit me to cite and extrapolate:
"Should DSP change his handle because of the Moslems here? Should people
refrain from fat jokes because it is something I am sensitive about?
Should Erap's drinking and womanizing not be joked about because
some here find it less than a laughing matter? ... "
I've no problem with the 'lampooning,' or the 'joking' over matters which
involves something mundane as DSPs wonderful personality out here; I've no
problem with making fun of the Pangulo himself; etc. etc. Heck, start
attacking my manner of diction, compositional skills, or even prose in
debate - No problem there either, but what you've suggested here is (and
I could be wrong about this) is that you feel that there are no limits to how
one expresses one's opinion, or even sense-of-humor out here ...Whereas, I
offered nothing more than an "observation," which you yourself were sensitive
enough to think that I was chastising you. Wherefore, in fact, and in the same
sense offered to chat with you, on this and other matters, thus extending an
offer of taking our exchange to a 'live' forum, which of course you declined.
But I'm not holding that against you! I'm just interested in how you
conveniently meander throughout our exchange, dismissing certain points
here and there, and formulating some witty come-back.
:Just because you have taken a personal dislike to me, doesn't mean you have
:the right to tell me what I am thinking on subjects never broached. What
:will you claim for my thoughts next? I look forward to your clairvoyance.
:Randy
Nothing personal, but actually, I like you. Your arguments are as cogent
as they are well-thought out, yet your aloofness to matters that are beyond
you, and your resistance to issues/matters that are inherently Filipino is
what is quite telling, if not amusing. And heck, you give me too much credit,
Bastos! I'm no medium, nor am I a psychic ('lil psycho mebbee), nor late-night
infomercial material hehehehe ...I am, however, trying to establish a dialogue
with you in hopes of getting understand the mindset of one who is resistant
(in so many words) to this concept of Filipinos having their day in court
when it comes to the US gov't - As well as this wonderful culture of
ours (inclusive of you).
And with that said, and in the context of this long running epic thread of
exchange, I'm looking forward to your next reply ...And again, I'm -not-
picking on you ...Let's just say, you've caught certain interest(s) ;-)
l8R
- Dominic
Bastos Kano
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:20:19 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> :Let's see -- because I offend your religious sensibilities, I am
> :intollerant. Not a whole lot of sense in that.
>
> Pls. read my followup again, and where did I suggest that you 'offended
> my religious sensibilities?' I merely stated that 'one had to be there
> to catch the humor,' in and of whatever it was that you thought was punny.
> Heck, and if I were there, perhaps I would of thought of it as ROFL
hilarious.
I got that from your admonishment against religious humor, your claiming I
am intollerant (I can see that you just HATE intollerant people! an old Tom
Lehrer line), and saying that I should be careful what I post here.
> :Tell me, were you born pompous and without a sense of humor, or did it
> :evolve? Why pick on me when there are others here who flat out blaspheme
> :and preach intollerance here? Could it possibly be the color of my skin
and
> :nationality? And you were talking about "intollerant"?
>
> Oh come now, I'm not 'picking on you!' Heck, and look who is being
"pompous,"
> and without a "sense of humor?" I wasn't the one out here trolling
Filipino
> sensitivities, and sensibilities with:
>
> o "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine
whether
> there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected
range
> of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
> statement, but not an actionable one ..."
What is the first thing that investigators do when looking into claims that
something caused something else? You must show a causal relationship which
extends beyond "there are toxics there, and toxics are known to cause these
symptoms." For instance, if you are attempting to demonstrate that smoking
causes certain illnesses, you have to compare the incidence of illness with
a sample population of the same size which does not smoke to determine
whether there is an actual increase in the incidence that can be only
attributable to the factor you are isolating. I guess you misread my quote
above -- I am not stating that everyone living in the motor pool will die
from contamination and showing callous indifference thereto, just that they
will die (as we all will). Because someone has an illness or dies does not,
in the isolated instance, denote a connection. The fact that all people
living today anywhere will die is no referent to their living conditions.
The fact that people have certain diseases that can be caused by certain
forms of contamination does not mean they were. The articles under
discussion involved statements about samples taken from wells the Philippine
CDC says are not source for drinking water, and thus though the contaminants
were found the people may not have been exposed to them. Forgive me for not
simply siding with the people making claims when others, of equal or greater
stature, are indicating that they do not see a cause-effect relationship.
Actually, my quote above *demonstrates* my sense of humor, in that I state
the obvious that all people will die. If you misread that because you
*presume* I have some anti-Filipino attutude, then you need to examine your
own prejudices and presuppositions.
> & who could ever forget ...
>
> o "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
> transaction, too."
>
> re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
Which statement above is incorrect? Are there not monuments honoring
Japanese soldiers (whether simple grave markers or more)? Did not Japanese
soldiers die in the Philippines? Did they not kill, maim, torture, rape and
enslave Filipinos during the course of their invasion and occupation? Did
the Japanese not pay for the privelege of erecting their markers? Am I not
allowed to wonder at the irony here? Just as I might wonder about the irony
of the toxic problem being such a big issue that 7 of 9 Filipino senators
failed to show up at the key meeting on the subject with US legislators? Or
is that "trolling", too?
> And the slough of non-sequiturs and fallacies which suggested that
> this class action suit by those Filipinos in Clark, against the
> US and RP gov'ts (which you later found out NOT to be borne of
> "anti-American hate rhetoric"), is without merit, and whom you
> would prefer not to seek compensation, or for that fact their
> day-in-court with their grievance and allegation. And heck, I
> found this early contention of your's not only preposterous, but
> very, very amusing!
I never said it was without merit; I said it was not an open and shut case
that several folks here assumed it was, that full responsibility should not
fall on the USG (and later, the USG and RPG), and that I did not believe
this was the appropriate venue. Read my clarification below:
"I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that just
because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
today). Find the facts. Clean the mess. Reasonably compensate any
demonstrated victims. I know it's not that simple, but it sorta boils down
to that in my mind."
> :I never used the words "morally bankrupt". Yes, as anyone can see there
are
> :real moral issues within the culture of the Philippines, many which trace
> :their roots into the influence of the Catholic Church. Forgive me if
that
> :offends, but when a large part of the discussions here revolve around
"What
> :is wrong with the RP and how can we change", the first step is an honest
> :recognition of the problems. To pretend that moral and ethical problems
are
> :not at the heart of the problems in the RP is simply ignoring the facts.
If
> :you wish to be greatly offended, I can elaborate on how I believe
Catholic
> :imperialism has created and continues to foster pivotal problems.
>
> Ah, but Bastos, read your immortal words above, and the last sentence
which
> infers this.
Which sentence, where I mention Catholic imperialism? Sorry, but the
Catholic church has a long history of conversion at sword point. Occupied
people do not usually have the luxury of declining the conqueror's religion,
at least publicly. "Moral bankruptcy" for me means an abandonment of moral
principles, not a pattern of abuses and problems. If I felt the Filipino
people were morally bankrupt I wouldn't bother posting here. You are saying
that for a white boy to criticize corruption, dishonesty and opportunism in
the Philippines (which even you must be aware is a big problem, on the front
page of the papers there every day) involves both "trolling" and a blanket
condemnation of the Filipino people. This betrays nothing more than your
desire to pigeonhole me into a convenient category, which I do not fit.
> Please read it good, and what can be construed between the
> lines. Moreover, I really don't care how you feel about the
Catholic-church,
> the Moslems, the Protestants, the Moonies, etc. etc. ad infinitum ...I
would
> like to delve even more as to what motivates you to come out here and
spout
> how this case in Clark is without merit, and how (in your own words), with
> regard to those who *died* is "not an actionable one," in terms of
assisting
> and caring for those people.
Again, I do not believe I ever said it WASN'T actionable, I simply said it
MAY NOT be actionable. There is a big difference. My point, which you seem
to miss completely, is that I am not ready to condemn the USG and the RPG on
this matter until the issues are more clearly resolved. Is there not room
in this forum for someone to counter the "Yeah, they left this mess, and
look how these people have been harmed." with "Let's make sure of the facts
before we start making claims and laying blame." You see, there is a big
difference between there being toxics on the former bases and these toxics
being responsible for injuries. One cannot maintain bases for the length of
time that Clarke was there and not leave contamination (you cannot have a
gas station in one place for decades without there being contamination).
But the fact that there is contamination *does not necesarilly mean* that
illness and birth defects are a result of that contamination. I'm simply
not willing to jump on the bandwagon and railroad 2 national governments
(try them in the press, as it were) without more substantiation, nor do I
assume that any and all health problems that arise near contaminants are
caused by said contaminants. My father died of a respiratory ailment that
is normally associated with coal miners and asbestos plant workers, yet he
had no contact with these things. We even had a HAZMAT team examine his
house to determine if there was a source of contamination there, with no
results.
> :Please forgive my misunderstanding of the Japanese grave markers. When I
> :come across a monument with a Japanese inscription in the RP, and my
guide
> :says "That is a monument to Japanese who died here during WW2... they
paid
> :a lot of money to someone to get that placed", I am led to believe that
it
> :is a monument honoring the Japanese soldiers who did some not-so-nice
things
> :to the Philippines and Filipinos, which is ironic to say the least. Like
> :placing plaques in Dachau honoring guards who died in the performance of
> :their duty.
>
> Oh, Bastos, of course I can "forgive" you, but it's difficult to forget
> when your passions (or impassions) get the best of you. Furthermore, it
> did give us a glimpse of your disposition when it comes to dealing with
> certain matters that are sensitive to others. And having said this,
> and in retrospect of your opinion with regard to insensitivity over
> whatever matters you deem funny, or amusing, wouldn't you say that your
> dichotomy in and of this subject is ...How do I say this politely?
> ...Flawed?
How many posters are sensitive to others in this NG? I sure don't see a
whole lot of sensitivity or concern for other's positions, beliefs or
sensibilities. But perhaps I have to play by different rules, because I am
white and don't live in the RP? You, of course, ar Filipino and live in the
RP and thus have a very real tie (rather than an intellectual one of an
expat living elsewhere) and are pledging you life, fortune and sacred honor
to making the RP a better place.
Frankly, I think it rather ironic that this group of "elite" folks is so
often speaking for the common citizens of the RP. Some here may have
emerged from poverty, but odds are that in having access to this forum they
are in an earning category and social class far above the majority of
Filipinos in the RP. If they have beaten the system and pulled themselves
out of poverty to achieve success they are in a small minority. Our
observations are probably not from the perspective of someone who considers
living in a garbage dump and having an "occupation" there preferential to
moving elsewhere where they have no source of livlihood.
Yes, but what makes you believe that your "observation" has meaning to me?
Who are you, and what have you said or done, for me to take your words to
heart? You do not demonstrate any compelling reason for me to agree with
you, you merely make "observations" about my intollerance, my insensitivity,
my anti-Filipino sentiments. That strikes me as criticism.
As to why I do not "chat" online, my schedule (and my inclination) do not
allow it. This is not a SCF thing -- when ICQ first came along many friends
around the world used it, and while I took a stab at it I never got into it.
I cannot rearrange my schedule to fit in with others; NGs allow me to
converse whenever and wherever I have the time. I've a a family that is the
center of my universe, plus a business to run 7/365 that goes almost 24
hours a day. I sneak these sessions in when time permits.
> But I'm not holding that against you! I'm just interested in how you
> conveniently meander throughout our exchange, dismissing certain points
> here and there, and formulating some witty come-back.
Just as you do. Just as everyone here does.
> :Just because you have taken a personal dislike to me, doesn't mean you
have
> :the right to tell me what I am thinking on subjects never broached. What
> :will you claim for my thoughts next? I look forward to your
clairvoyance.
> :Randy
>
> Nothing personal, but actually, I like you. Your arguments are as cogent
> as they are well-thought out, yet your aloofness to matters that are
beyond
> you, and your resistance to issues/matters that are inherently Filipino is
> what is quite telling, if not amusing. And heck, you give me too much
credit,
> Bastos! I'm no medium, nor am I a psychic ('lil psycho mebbee), nor
late-night
> infomercial material hehehehe ...I am, however, trying to establish a
dialogue
> with you in hopes of getting understand the mindset of one who is
resistant
> (in so many words) to this concept of Filipinos having their day in court
> when it comes to the US gov't - As well as this wonderful culture of
> ours (inclusive of you).
And I like you, as misguided and hardheaded as you are ; p. Not sure what
you mean by "aloofness to matters beyond you". I could read that as a dig
at my intellectual capacity to comprehend the issues, but instead prefer to
read it as "issues in which you have no personal stake or experience". If
the later is the case, I would suggest that you might also have the same
said of you; aside from genetics, how different are we in our distance,
physically and philosophically, to Clarke?
I have to walk a fine line in this NG, being the Bastos Kano. I feel that I
cannot just state my feelings like JT, or rant like Siomai. I will not take
a self-flagellatory stance against the US and Americans like TJH. But I'm
not blind. I live with a Filipina, have two full-blooded Filipino kids and
a "Kanoy" toddler, and we always have one or more family members staying
with us from the RP. We have daily communication with the family back home,
and unlike several here I consider it a privelege to assist my family with
their education, their medical bills, their businesses and their homes.
Daily, here and in TRW, I have to face the paradox of so many Filipinos
admiring and wanting what the US has and produces, and on the other hand
those who criticize and condemn the US. There is a guilt that many people
seem to feel -- I want the chocolate, but know it's bad for me, so I'll say
I hate the chocolate, all the while hating myself for wanting the chocolate!
In one sense you are right, in that I really don't care for the Philippines,
per se, except as circumstances there severly affect my family living there.
I have no loyalty to the RP as a country. I have no unfettered love for the
the cuisine, and the beauty stirs me no more than other tropical places I
have visited. I have met great people and not so great people there, just
about like anywhere else in the world. I have no identification with the
history of the people there, as it is not my history. Yet because my family
is there, and all of the things we discuss here affect them on a daily
basis, I am very much interested in conditions in the RP and what can be
done to make them better. I do not want my family to have to wonder, every
day, how to make one small fish feed 5. I do not want family members abused
by the police, the military, or the justice system. I do not want rich
plutocrats stealing everything that is needed to improve production, health
and safety. It's all about family for me -- these are my people, and I
cannot undue what a corrupt and uncaring government inflicts upon them. I
am not Filipino, but my family is. My ties are stronger than most of the
2nd generation Pinoys I know in the States, so many of whom view the
Philippines as something that has nothing to do with them, and who have no
desire to ever visit. I know several who cannot locate the RP on a map. I
try to learn a little Tagalog, here and there, not beuase of the beauty of
the language but because I feel it shows my family I respect them when I use
it (and it provides the kids lots of giggles and howls of laughter at my
expense).
Randy
tansong isda
> I have NO idea what you mean by a "fear, of being excluded from
> Filipinization". I fell in love with a Filipina, not the Philippines or
> Filipino culture. While I enjoy many aspects of Filipino culture,
> particularly the extended family aspects (I hate fish of any kind -- no pun
> or insult intended! ; ), so you know how I feel about much of Filipino
> cooking; my wife learned to cook Chinese while in Malasia, which is more
> pleasing to my palatte), I have no interest in "becoming" Filipino. While
> my son is being raised with an appreciation of his heritage, including
> learning Tagalog and yearly visits with his cousins, neither my wife nor I
> have any intention of trying to make him "Filipino". He is an American,
> born of two US citizens, and we have no pretentions otherwise.
Hmmm...I misunderstood, your fear then is your exclusion from the Philippines
the country, not the culture, fishy one at that. Tuyo, etc...there is no basis
for this fear, and this lawsuit is not anti-American at all!
It is plain common sense to sue the country that is poisoning your people and
self, and the suit filed in the country that is purported to be responsible.
This was done by Bangla Deshi people when Union Carbide blew up, remember that?
And why not? Is that anti-American? This is not a question of idealism now.
> It seems as if you say that Kanos are taking "anti-Filipino" stances because
> they are afrain of NOT being accepted as Filipinos? I must not understand
> what you are trying to say, though you repeat it in several posts. I know
> of only one Kano here who wants to be a Filipino; most of the rest of us
> have a respect for the culture and an interest in learning more about it,
> but I don't see a lot of people wishing they had been born Filipinos or
> whatever. I'm never going to be accepted as a Filipino even if I wanted it;
> it is monumentally easier for a Filipino to become an American than an
> American to become a Filipino. Even that is tough, as many here can
> testify. I was heartened a few weeks back when I attended the graduation of
> the UC Riverside Business school where a former employee (and my daughters
> probable future husband) graduated summa. These kids will achive to a much
> greater extent the goal of their parents (and grandparents, in some cases)
> who were lured by the American dream. There were many Filipinos here,
> notably accepted and appreciated by their peers of many races and cultural
> backgrounds. As they go off into the business world they will help shatter
> any negative stereotypes people have about Filipinos.
My father lived and died as a Filipino, everyone accepted him as Filipino-Kano,
yes, dear sir, you may not be accepted fully but accepted you will be as long as
you speak the local language. I have never used the word anti-Filipino. Well, I
can't remember, maybe I did....
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
>>>"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
>>>message news:Aplh5.401433$MB.63...@news6.giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:20:19 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>> :Let's see -- because I offend your religious sensibilities, I am
>> :intollerant. Not a whole lot of sense in that.
>> Pls. read my followup again, and where did I suggest that you 'offended
>> my religious sensibilities?' I merely stated that 'one had to be there
>> to catch the humor,' in and of whatever it was that you thought was punny.
>> Heck, and if I were there, perhaps I would of thought of it as ROFL
>> hilarious.
: I got that from your admonishment against religious humor, your claiming I
: am intollerant (I can see that you just HATE intollerant people! an old Tom
: Lehrer line), and saying that I should be careful what I post here.
Awww. Again, please don't get hung up on the semantics, Bastos ...Heheheh,
do look up the term 'intolerant,' and consider this tid-bit, in and of this
context, 'kay?
o " Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet
I have not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any
responses here. Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they
lived there and got sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She
looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the nature
or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
' bandwagon.' ..."
re: <http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=650658770.1&mhitnum=9&CONTEXT=965136707.663617548>
See the "intolerance" here? : ) Oh, but what of this erudite resolution
to this matter?
o "You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up
any toxic contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP
compensates the US for the 'tenant improvements' ..."
re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
And again, please, read my follow up again because you are missing a point
or two, if not the who gist of our exchange altogether.
>> :Tell me, were you born pompous and without a sense of humor, or did it
>> :evolve? Why pick on me when there are others here who flat out blaspheme
>> :and preach intollerance here? Could it possibly be the color of my skin
>> :and nationality? And you were talking about "intollerant"?
>> Oh come now, I'm not 'picking on you!' Heck, and look who is being
>> "pompous," and without a "sense of humor?" I wasn't the one out here
>> trolling Filipino sensitivities, and sensibilities with:
>>
>>o "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine
>> whether there is any indication that these deaths are out of the
>> expected range of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there
>> will die] is a true statement, but not an actionable one ..."
>>
>> & who could ever forget ...
>>
>>o "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
>> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
>> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
>> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
>> transaction, too."
>>
>> re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
>>
>> And the slough of non-sequiturs and fallacies which suggested that
>> this class action suit by those Filipinos in Clark, against the
>> US and RP gov'ts (which you later found out NOT to be borne of
>> "anti-American hate rhetoric"), is without merit, and whom you
>> would prefer not to seek compensation, or for that fact their
>> day-in-court with their grievance and allegation. And heck, I
>> found this early contention of your's not only preposterous, but
>> very, very amusing!
: What is the first thing that investigators do when looking into claims that
: something caused something else? You must show a causal relationship which
: extends beyond "there are toxics there, and toxics are known to cause these
: symptoms." For instance, if you are attempting to demonstrate that smoking
: causes certain illnesses, you have to compare the incidence of illness with
: a sample population of the same size which does not smoke to determine
: whether there is an actual increase in the incidence that can be only
: attributable to the factor you are isolating. I guess you misread my quote
: above -- I am not stating that everyone living in the motor pool will die
: from contamination and showing callous indifference thereto, just that they
: will die (as we all will). Because someone has an illness or dies does not,
: in the isolated instance, denote a connection. The fact that all people
: living today anywhere will die is no referent to their living conditions.
: The fact that people have certain diseases that can be caused by certain
: forms of contamination does not mean they were. The articles under
: discussion involved statements about samples taken from wells the Philippine
: CDC says are not source for drinking water, and thus though the contaminants
: were found the people may not have been exposed to them. Forgive me for not
: simply siding with the people making claims when others, of equal or greater
: stature, are indicating that they do not see a cause-effect relationship.
: Actually, my quote above *demonstrates* my sense of humor, in that I state
: the obvious that all people will die. If you misread that because you
: *presume* I have some anti-Filipino attutude, then you need to examine your
: own prejudices and presuppositions.
And remember, those initial "investigators" were not from the US military
& government, they were independent and backed by certain legislators in the
RP government to "investigate." And now, how many years now? Since the
first signs of toxic contamination(s) began to appear in and of those who
went in and populated the abandoned former base/sites around the RP are
they now coming to a presumption that there was no 'causal relationship?'
And again, you cited simply 'one' contention from the CDC and hyperboled
it into this protracted meandering retort of a thread.
Please. Think about it, just because these people were suffering from maladies
that are not the usual or normal, such as typhoid, malaria, or a number
of diseases indigenous to this province or locale, but symptoms that suggest
that it may be the result of toxic poisoning, there is -no- possibility that
this was attributed to the chemicals that the USAF stored and housed there?
Hmmm. And I see quite clearly where your own 'prejudices,' and 'humor'
lies within this tragedy, and/or at the expense who are suffering, and or
have died. Yet, one's apologistic manner in attempting to diminish the
gravity of this, and deflect where part of the responsibility lays, is
just as transparent.
: Which statement above is incorrect? Are there not monuments honoring
: Japanese soldiers (whether simple grave markers or more)? Did not Japanese
: soldiers die in the Philippines? Did they not kill, maim, torture, rape and
: enslave Filipinos during the course of their invasion and occupation? Did
: the Japanese not pay for the privelege of erecting their markers? Am I not
: allowed to wonder at the irony here? Just as I might wonder about the irony
: of the toxic problem being such a big issue that 7 of 9 Filipino senators
: failed to show up at the key meeting on the subject with US legislators? Or
: is that "trolling", too?
Thanks for that non-sequitur, Bastos ...But I was offering a direct in regard
to your declaration:
"I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
transaction, too."
...And are you feebly attempting to back-peddle or even deny having taken
this postulation, in a weak attempt to back a contention filled with
fallacies? And again, might I remind you that the RP gov't are also
named as defendants in the class-action suit. Hmmm.
: I never said it was without merit; I said it was not an open and shut case
: that several folks here assumed it was, that full responsibility should not
: fall on the USG (and later, the USG and RPG), and that I did not believe
: this was the appropriate venue. Read my clarification below:
: "I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that just
: because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
: too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
: investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
: upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
: today). Find the facts. Clean the mess. Reasonably compensate any
: demonstrated victims. I know it's not that simple, but it sorta boils down
: to that in my mind."
Of course it isn't an "open and shut case," and what better way to have
the -truth- ascertained by ajudicating this matter, which it appears that
you wholeheartedly opposed. And again, this isn't about some 'envious
anti-American sentiment so common today,' (cit. yet another hasty
generalization), since that was de-bunked some time back on this thread
when you learned that the US wasn't the only defendants in this.
>> :I never used the words "morally bankrupt". Yes, as anyone can see there
>> :are real moral issues within the culture of the Philippines, many which
>> :trace their roots into the influence of the Catholic Church. Forgive me
>> :if that offends, but when a large part of the discussions here revolve around
>> :"What is wrong with the RP and how can we change", the first step is an honest
>> :recognition of the problems. To pretend that moral and ethical problems
>> :are not at the heart of the problems in the RP is simply ignoring the facts.
>> :If you wish to be greatly offended, I can elaborate on how I believe
>> :Catholic imperialism has created and continues to foster pivotal problems.
>> Ah, but Bastos, read your immortal words above, and the last sentence which
>> infers this. Please read it good, and what can be construed between the
>> lines. Moreover, I really don't care how you feel about the Catholic-church,
>> the Moslems, the Protestants, the Moonies, etc. etc. ad infinitum ...I would
>> like to delve even more as to what motivates you to come out here and spout
>> how this case in Clark is without merit, and how (in your own words), with
>> regard to those who *died* is "not an actionable one," in terms of assisting
>> and caring for those people.
: Which sentence, where I mention Catholic imperialism? Sorry, but the
: Catholic church has a long history of conversion at sword point. Occupied
: people do not usually have the luxury of declining the conqueror's religion,
: at least publicly. "Moral bankruptcy" for me means an abandonment of moral
: principles, not a pattern of abuses and problems. If I felt the Filipino
: people were morally bankrupt I wouldn't bother posting here. You are saying
: that for a white boy to criticize corruption, dishonesty and opportunism in
: the Philippines (which even you must be aware is a big problem, on the front
: page of the papers there every day) involves both "trolling" and a blanket
: condemnation of the Filipino people. This betrays nothing more than your
: desire to pigeonhole me into a convenient category, which I do not fit.
T'was you who raised the 'religion card,' (among other controversial matters)
Bastos. It was you sharing what you found funny in impersonating a member of
your faith and taking tithings in humor. And again, my hard-headed Kano, I
presumed that "one had to be there to see the humor," and I went to to further
presume that it might have been funny. But no, you went into some diatribe
in justifying what you did (as humor), and in an entertaining manner at that.
Um-hm. Yet, now I see how you convolute your reasoning here. In attempting
to justify what you said in your quip over the Japanese soldiers graves
in the RP, and fabricating it into this weak, yet uncompelling reason(s)
for justifying your (I assume) contempt for a certain religious denomination,
which ever that might be, you combine the two. Whow! Nice tact, but it
doesn't wash here, Bastos.
Furthermore, this isn't about 'some whiteboy' as you so eloquently term,
criticizing the ills and problems of a nation and her people, it's really
about the preception one leaves behind when declaring matters as such
...And in terms of 'pigeonholing,' well, if you haven't noticed, I've been
leaving that up to you.
: Again, I do not believe I ever said it WASN'T actionable, I simply said it
: MAY NOT be actionable. There is a big difference. My point, which you seem
: to miss completely, is that I am not ready to condemn the USG and the RPG on
: this matter until the issues are more clearly resolved. Is there not room
: in this forum for someone to counter the "Yeah, they left this mess, and
: look how these people have been harmed." with "Let's make sure of the facts
: before we start making claims and laying blame." You see, there is a big
: difference between there being toxics on the former bases and these toxics
: being responsible for injuries. One cannot maintain bases for the length of
: time that Clarke was there and not leave contamination (you cannot have a
: gas station in one place for decades without there being contamination).
: But the fact that there is contamination *does not necesarilly mean* that
: illness and birth defects are a result of that contamination. I'm simply
: not willing to jump on the bandwagon and railroad 2 national governments
: (try them in the press, as it were) without more substantiation, nor do I
: assume that any and all health problems that arise near contaminants are
: caused by said contaminants. My father died of a respiratory ailment that
: is normally associated with coal miners and asbestos plant workers, yet he
: had no contact with these things. We even had a HAZMAT team examine his
: house to determine if there was a source of contamination there, with no
: results.
Now you say you want the 'facts before making claims,' huh? Well, what
better way to achieve this that to adjudicate it in a court of law? Or
do you have another means by achieving this?
Perhaps, blind-faith in the benevolence of both the US & RP government, and
what some bureaucrat at the RP CDC has to say about the well waters there?
And while you continue to make examples out of your family experience, which
I sincerely offer my empathy, of and for whatever reasons of your kin passing
away, this again has no bearing upon this matter of international concern and
those Filipinos who are seeking justice and compensation in this
matter.
But before I am once again -detracted- by your impassioned retort,
and non-sequitur, I must admit, your words are compelling, Bastos
...Now where did you say it "MAY NOT be actionable?" Hmmm? Your
declaration here appears pretty emphatic:
"These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine whether
there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected range
of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
statement, but not an actionable one ..."
>> :Please forgive my misunderstanding of the Japanese grave markers. When I
>> :come across a monument with a Japanese inscription in the RP, and my
>> :guide "That is a monument to Japanese who died here during WW2... they
>> :paid a lot of money to someone to get that placed", I am led to believe
>> :that it is a monument honoring the Japanese soldiers who did some
>> :not-so-nice things to the Philippines and Filipinos, which is ironic
>> :to say the least. Like placing plaques in Dachau honoring guards who
>> :died in the performance of their duty.
>> Oh, Bastos, of course I can "forgive" you, but it's difficult to forget
>> when your passions (or impassions) get the best of you. Furthermore, it
>> did give us a glimpse of your disposition when it comes to dealing with
>> certain matters that are sensitive to others. And having said this,
>> and in retrospect of your opinion with regard to insensitivity over
>> whatever matters you deem funny, or amusing, wouldn't you say that your
>> dichotomy in and of this subject is ...How do I say this politely?
>> ...Flawed?
: How many posters are sensitive to others in this NG? I sure don't see a
: whole lot of sensitivity or concern for other's positions, beliefs or
: sensibilities. But perhaps I have to play by different rules, because I am
: white and don't live in the RP? You, of course, ar Filipino and live in the
: RP and thus have a very real tie (rather than an intellectual one of an
: expat living elsewhere) and are pledging you life, fortune and sacred honor
: to making the RP a better place.
Why to you see yourself as a 'victim,' just because you are white? Hmmm.
Remember how you came onto this thread blaring away with non-sequiturs
and fallacies meant to provoke? Heck, you were spoiling for an argument
against this case being adjudicated. And now that your argument has virtually
fallen apart (mostly by your own undoing), you drag in religion, race, and
in an impassioned tact for sympathy, your family. Neverthless, where are the
'merits' in and of your argument which support your contention that this case
should not be tried?
Whoa. I'll go a step further. Where was the US/RP government when pleas for
assistance fell on deaf ears when signs of toxic poisoning began to surface
there at CABCOM? Did it take a independent and grassroots effort to
"investigate" this for the US/RP government to take notice? Of course,
and now we are where we are in this -ahem- 'investigation,' and lacksadasical
action by RP legislators currently in the US.
: Frankly, I think it rather ironic that this group of "elite" folks is so
: often speaking for the common citizens of the RP. Some here may have
: emerged from poverty, but odds are that in having access to this forum they
: are in an earning category and social class far above the majority of
: Filipinos in the RP. If they have beaten the system and pulled themselves
: out of poverty to achieve success they are in a small minority. Our
: observations are probably not from the perspective of someone who considers
: living in a garbage dump and having an "occupation" there preferential to
: moving elsewhere where they have no source of livlihood.
Now we are back to the "garbage dump" thingy ...Gee, with the suggestion
of biased 'elitism' by those who have access to soc.culture.filipino to
boot! Will the non-sequiturs and meandering ever cease? And what this
has to do with you being against this case going to trial is somewhat
beyond me.
Ah. I see. I'm nobody for you to 'take my words to heart,' but in the
-context- of our exchange, and the manner in which you pour your own
heart (& kin) to bear out here, one could readily ask that of yourself.
But that's neither here nor there, it does however demonstrate just to
what measures one would take in convoluting a matter as simple as whether
or not this case goes to trial. Be that as it may, you did indeed hyperbole
my simple reply where I stated:
"I suppose one had to be there catch the humor ..."
Di ba? And who I am in terms of this 'reply' is who you were attempting
to convey some concept of humor however you deem funny, and myself offering
nothing more sharing an observation completely with the context of SCF.
But that's a minor asidein and of the crux of the point of order involving
those seeking justicein Clark, but a tangent that I pursued and thus again
extrapolated the fallacy therein.
: As to why I do not "chat" online, my schedule (and my inclination) do not
: allow it. This is not a SCF thing -- when ICQ first came along many friends
: around the world used it, and while I took a stab at it I never got into it.
: I cannot rearrange my schedule to fit in with others; NGs allow me to
: converse whenever and wherever I have the time. I've a a family that is the
: center of my universe, plus a business to run 7/365 that goes almost 24
: hours a day. I sneak these sessions in when time permits.
Well I do appreciate you at least trying. Nevertheless, the effort that
you've employed to this point is commendable and by the same token I can
relate to your responsibilities. And on the otherhand, this exercise is
quite stimulating to see to what lengths you'd go in re-constructing your
argument(s) ;-)
>> But I'm not holding that against you! I'm just interested in how you
>> conveniently meander throughout our exchange, dismissing certain points
>> here and there, and formulating some witty come-back.
: Just as you do. Just as everyone here does.
Hehehehe ...Please note that this particular follow up is intact, and I was
simply following your cue/paradigm early on when you convieniently omitted
and dismissed some points raised in:
" Be that as it may, and quite eloquently put I might add ...It doesn't
mean that thes Filipinos shouldn't have their day in court, and in
upholding an American legal tenet: "Innocent until proven guilty."
re: <http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=651018557&CONTEXT=965136707.663617548>
...And of course your reply:
re: <http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=651179029.1&mhitnum=15&CONTEXT=965136707.663617548>
There is one particular matter here that I've yet to address, but we'll get bek to
this later.
>> :Just because you have taken a personal dislike to me, doesn't mean you
>> :have the right to tell me what I am thinking on subjects never broached.
>> :What will you claim for my thoughts next? I look forward to your
>> :clairvoyance.
>> :Randy
>> Nothing personal, but actually, I like you. Your arguments are as cogent
>> as they are well-thought out, yet your aloofness to matters that are
>> beyond you, and your resistance to issues/matters that are inherently Filipino
>> is what is quite telling, if not amusing. And heck, you give me too much
>> credit, Bastos! I'm no medium, nor am I a psychic ('lil psycho mebbee), nor
>> late-night infomercial material hehehehe ...I am, however, trying to establish
>> a dialogue with you in hopes of getting understand the mindset of one who is
>> resistant (in so many words) to this concept of Filipinos having their day in
>> court when it comes to the US gov't - As well as this wonderful culture of
>> ours (inclusive of you).
: And I like you, as misguided and hardheaded as you are ; p. Not sure what
: you mean by "aloofness to matters beyond you". I could read that as a dig
: at my intellectual capacity to comprehend the issues, but instead prefer to
: read it as "issues in which you have no personal stake or experience". If
: the later is the case, I would suggest that you might also have the same
: said of you; aside from genetics, how different are we in our distance,
: physically and philosophically, to Clarke?
Stanley Clarke? Great jazz-bassist, but Lewis was a burden to the expedition ;-)
Hmmm. Pretty close actually. And since you are dragging kin into this, do
you remember a war in SE Asia where one those question in that epoch deployed
a defoliant (ie. chemicals) in their warfare tactics? Remember those who
suffered from this and how a large chemical corporation *denied* a 'causal
relationship' between what was used to combat this war and those who suffered,
and died even years after, and for which a certain administration *denied*
benefits to those vets who were indeed diagnosed with problems which were
the result of that toxic chemical? Draw your own conclusion ...And compare
it with one's 'blind faith' in and of our government (US) and what the
parameters of this country's responsibility is in matters such as this.
And as for 'genetics,' I see just how (sic) profound your thinking is in this
matter which has nothing to do with the racial, or ethnic make up of those
involved in this matter in Clark - And in citation of your contention that
this is all about some ignorant anti-American endeavor, which of course was
acknowledged when you ascertained that the US was not the only defendant
named in the class-action suit, eh? And again, if I haven't stated this
enough already, this isn't about US=white RP=brown, or the pigmentation
of those involved ...But of a matter of principle, responsibility and
juris prudence.
: I have to walk a fine line in this NG, being the Bastos Kano. I feel that I
: cannot just state my feelings like JT, or rant like Siomai. I will not take
: a self-flagellatory stance against the US and Americans like TJH. But I'm
: not blind. I live with a Filipina, have two full-blooded Filipino kids and
: a "Kanoy" toddler, and we always have one or more family members staying
: with us from the RP. We have daily communication with the family back home,
: and unlike several here I consider it a privelege to assist my family with
: their education, their medical bills, their businesses and their homes.
: Daily, here and in TRW, I have to face the paradox of so many Filipinos
: admiring and wanting what the US has and produces, and on the other hand
: those who criticize and condemn the US. There is a guilt that many people
: seem to feel -- I want the chocolate, but know it's bad for me, so I'll say
: I hate the chocolate, all the while hating myself for wanting the chocolate!
Ah, I see you are coming around. But why would you want to state your feelings
like JT, or even 'rant like Siomai?' etc. etc. Be yourself. Be the BASTOS
KANO that we've come to know and understand, and bilib it or not you're doing
a great job so far. Yet, you're tugging at heart-strings, Bastos imbued with
your postulations against having the trial held ...More importantly the
correlation isn't all too clear and of course, the pity-points notwithstanding.
;-)
: In one sense you are right, in that I really don't care for the Philippines,
: per se, except as circumstances there severly affect my family living there.
: I have no loyalty to the RP as a country. I have no unfettered love for the
: the cuisine, and the beauty stirs me no more than other tropical places I
: have visited. I have met great people and not so great people there, just
: about like anywhere else in the world. I have no identification with the
: history of the people there, as it is not my history. Yet because my family
: is there, and all of the things we discuss here affect them on a daily
: basis, I am very much interested in conditions in the RP and what can be
: done to make them better. I do not want my family to have to wonder, every
: day, how to make one small fish feed 5. I do not want family members abused
: by the police, the military, or the justice system. I do not want rich
: plutocrats stealing everything that is needed to improve production, health
: and safety. It's all about family for me -- these are my people, and I
: cannot undue what a corrupt and uncaring government inflicts upon them. I
: am not Filipino, but my family is. My ties are stronger than most of the
: 2nd generation Pinoys I know in the States, so many of whom view the
: Philippines as something that has nothing to do with them, and who have no
: desire to ever visit. I know several who cannot locate the RP on a map. I
: try to learn a little Tagalog, here and there, not beuase of the beauty of
: the language but because I feel it shows my family I respect them when I use
: it (and it provides the kids lots of giggles and howls of laughter at my
: expense).
: Randy
Quite a stretch from your initial position against having the case tried, and
while I wholeheartedly comprehend each and every word you've stated and shared
to this point which has very little semblence to what we are trying to achieve
in obtaining some consensus over Clark, it's now somewhat clear where you
are coming from. You have no affinity for a nation (per se) where the
'significant half' and reasons by which you are here, your family is from,
and for that fact spout confrontational opinions in a newsgroup of those
who are of the same ethnicity, yet you justify your position via faulty
analogies, non-sequiturs and just about every compositional fallacy under
the sun, over not having the trial held at all based on your endearing
'love, and respect for your family?' Whow! And while I applaud and respect
you for that, t sounds a wee-bit convoluted doncha' think? Nevertheless,
it's just your opinion on this subtle issue over the "toxics," the "suffering,"
and the "deaths" in Clark which you presume isn't worthy of a courtroom/justice,
and from a perspective that is quite tangential to say the least.
But that doesn't mean that this exchange is by any means over ...Especially in
and of this quote:
" The town next to where I live in CA has a big Chevron refinery. Every few years,
they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind of emissions. Instantly thousands
of residents go to local hospitals and stand in line for hours for "treatment" so
they can get in on a settlement ..."
re: <RRlf5.60009$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
"Every few years?" Hmm. "Discharge the wrong kind of emmissions?" Ah. Interesting,
given the fact that the Avon facility there in Contra Costa had two (2) accidents
within a calendar year involving fires ...And can one imagine what sort of "wrong kind
of emissions," that entailed, eh? But here is a government report on -that- matter.
re: <http://chemsafety.gov/1999/inv/9914ica.htm>
Of course those suffering in Clark are not worthy of such an "investigation," "legal
recourse," nor "venue" until -ALL- the facts are in, right? Again, I'm simply alluding
and getting a better understanding of your non-sequitur above.
Bastos Kano
"tansong isda" <ta...@hindiginto.ito> wrote in message
> Bastos Kano wrote:
<snip a lot of stuff that the two of us -- who are probably the only ones
who care! ; ) already know.>
Interesting about your father. How long did he live in the Philippines?
Were you born there? Nothing to do with this discussion, I'm just
intrigued. Did he retire there after service?
Still completely in the dark about your reference to my fear of being
excluded from anything. Now you say that I have a fear of being excluded
from the country -- are you saying that I have a fear that I won't be
allowed into the RP? Since we have arranged US visitor visas for most of
the family we are really close to, and both of Maria's parents are dead, we
don't have any compelling reasons to fear exclusion from the country. The
Philippines for me is not some cross between Disneyland and Shangri La that
I long to return to. If for some reason (say, those ax murder convictions
are made known to RP Immigration) I was denied entry into the country my
life would not change substantially. We spend 2-3 weeks a year there, tops.
And Maria is already saying she wants to skip a few years to visit Paris and
Egypt instead.
I would miss my family terribly if we didn't have phone, letter, and email
contact, as well as constant visitors here. It is much cheaper for me to
bring them here for 6 months at a shot than to visit with our family for 3
weeks annually. We try not to have more than 2 at a time for logistical
reasons (only 4 bedrooms). Funny story (to me, at least), when we were
first bringing my SIL here, Maria and I had said we were concerned about
having enough room to sleep our kids and SIL. When she saw our house (3400
sq feet, 3 stories) she looked at all the empty floor space in the living
room and said seriously, "I don't know why you were worried about sleeping
room -- we could sleep 20 here!".
Randy
Bastos Kano
>
> Awww. Again, please don't get hung up on the semantics, Bastos
...Heheheh,
> do look up the term 'intolerant,' and consider this tid-bit, in and of
this
> context, 'kay?
Websters Online defines it as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a :
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious
matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional
rights : BIGOTED
> o " Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet
> I have not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any
> responses here. Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they
> lived there and got sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She
> looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
> this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the
nature
> or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
> Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
> ' bandwagon.' ..."
>
> See the "intolerance" here? : ) Oh, but what of this erudite resolution
> to this matter?
No. Perhaps you can explicate, based upon Webster's definition. Is asking
for a clarification, and being unwilling to draw a scientific conclusion
based upon claims made by litigants, intolerant? Show me SPECIFICS, not
just long quotes, and explain why you think it shows my intolerance.
Actually, you will see that I am arguing AGAINT the intolerance of people
who refuse to acknowledge that the US ever did any good by the RP or
Filipinos, or who jump on a bandwagon.
> o "You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up
> any toxic contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP
> compensates the US for the 'tenant improvements' ..."
>
Is in intolerant to ask that *some* consideration be given, if only lip
service, to the incredible physical resources the bases left behind?
Nowhere have I seen ANYONE critical of the US here admit that these bases
provide a great economic opportunity and infrastructure in areas that are
not nearly as soundly built. The people I have talked with in the
Philippines recognize how important a resource they are, but I guess to
admit the obvious appears to undermine the position that some take that NO
good came out of the US military in the RP (actually, I know several people
in this NG who might be considered good that came out of US bases...).
>
> Please. Think about it, just because these people were suffering from
maladies
> that are not the usual or normal, such as typhoid, malaria, or a number
> of diseases indigenous to this province or locale, but symptoms that
suggest
> that it may be the result of toxic poisoning, there is -no- possibility
that
> this was attributed to the chemicals that the USAF stored and housed
there?
> Hmmm. And I see quite clearly where your own 'prejudices,' and 'humor'
> lies within this tragedy, and/or at the expense who are suffering, and or
> have died. Yet, one's apologistic manner in attempting to diminish the
> gravity of this, and deflect where part of the responsibility lays, is
> just as transparent.
Again, your perspective has you reading my words incorrectly. Point out
where I say there is -no- possibility that the problems were the result of
toxic poisoning? I haven't ever written that. I have said that one cannot
assume that, that there does not appear to be (in the sources cited)
incontrovertable evidence of a link. I also say that there probably is one.
How is that saying there is -no- possibility? You read the following:
: The fact that people have certain diseases that can be caused by certain
: forms of contamination does not mean they were. The articles under
: discussion involved statements about samples taken from wells the
Philippine
: CDC says are not source for drinking water, and thus though the
contaminants
: were found the people may not have been exposed to them. Forgive me for
not
: simply siding with the people making claims when others, of equal or
greater
: stature, are indicating that they do not see a cause-effect relationship.
and tell me I am saying there is no possibility of a connection. Never said
it, never would say that.
And you know what? The more I read about this, the more I agree that there
is a connection (not that I ever thought there wasn't -- I just believed
that it hadn't been adequately demonstrated, and that people with anti-US
perspectives were accepting as the conclusions of the plaintiffs not because
of science but because of philosophy. That's what the OJ jury did, and I
don't think that's justice). Someone has to play Devil's advocate here to
keep the anti-US sentiment from running too strong. You see, I can take a
skeptical stance all the while believing it is true. I may feel certain
someone is guilty of a crime, but want to make sure the evidence is there
before locking them away. And again, I do not feel a civil suit of
outlandish proportions is the best way to go about it. The best way is to
have governmental meetings where RP representatives show up. So many of the
reports I read prior to Erap's visit stated that the US would probably give
him what he asked for because of the relationship between our countries.
Toxic cleanup and reparations would have been a key target, but was blown.
> : Which statement above is incorrect? Are there not monuments honoring
> : Japanese soldiers (whether simple grave markers or more)? Did not
Japanese
> : soldiers die in the Philippines? Did they not kill, maim, torture, rape
and
> : enslave Filipinos during the course of their invasion and occupation?
Did
> : the Japanese not pay for the privelege of erecting their markers? Am I
not
> : allowed to wonder at the irony here? Just as I might wonder about the
irony
> : of the toxic problem being such a big issue that 7 of 9 Filipino
senators
> : failed to show up at the key meeting on the subject with US legislators?
Or
> : is that "trolling", too?
>
> Thanks for that non-sequitur, Bastos ...But I was offering a direct in
regard
> to your declaration
You LOVE that word, non-sequitur, and over-use it whenever you do not have a
response (except when you are calling me intolerant or some other cheap
label). I am talking about irony, two specific instances of it. Not a
non-sequitur at all. Calling it that is your way of not addressing the
questions I pose, because you can't. When you debate, try to respond to
specifics, rather than just regurgitate and label. "This is intolerance
(somewhere in the above sentences. You guess where)." "This is a
non-sequitur (any examples you use are non-sequiturs)." Had you been with
Jesus' audience, you would have said "But we're not talking about a widow
here, or a wedding, or a son. Non-sequiturs, Jesus -- just answer the
questions!"
> "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
> transaction, too."
>
> ...And are you feebly attempting to back-peddle or even deny having taken
> this postulation, in a weak attempt to back a contention filled with
> fallacies? And again, might I remind you that the RP gov't are also
> named as defendants in the class-action suit. Hmmm.
Hunh? What does that have to do with the above? What "postulation" (from
your usage, probably the wrong term, making it even harder to understand
you. Stop trying to sound like a Freshman comp writer; use smaller words
you are more certain of). This doesn't make any sense, except for you to
use the words "postulation" and "fallacies" in the same sentence. What
fallacies? That I'm claiming there is -no- possibility of a connection?
Not really a fallacy, and not what I said. Perhaps if you wrote earlier in
your day?
>
> Of course it isn't an "open and shut case," and what better way to have
> the -truth- ascertained by ajudicating this matter, which it appears that
> you wholeheartedly opposed. And again, this isn't about some 'envious
> anti-American sentiment so common today,' (cit. yet another hasty
> generalization), since that was de-bunked some time back on this thread
> when you learned that the US wasn't the only defendants in this.
Show me ONCE where I have said it should not be adjudicated! Yes, I believe
that a civil suit is the wrong venue -- for one thing, such a suit requires
a tremendous amount of resources, which I doubt are available. I have
maintained that this is a governmental matter, possibly an extragovernmental
matter for an organization like the WHO. It is a matter for the honorable
politicians of the RPG and USG to work out, and they seem to be working
toward it. The governmental process may or may not take as long as a civil
process, but the civil process if rife with uncertainties, beginning with
jurisdiction and venue. Now, twist this -- this should not be a matter of a
civil suit but of negotiations between nations, since it involves tricky
multinational agreements and decisions. I am NOT saying the mess should not
be cleaned up, and I am NOT saying people should not be compensated. Get
it?
And understand that when I say that the US should pay when they are
compensated for "tenant improvements" that is irony, too. I know darn well
that no one will ever compensate the USG for the bases. And I have also
stated that I believe the US should pay. Those structures and
infrastructures are a form of aid. Too bad no one had the decency to say
even a qualified "Thank you."
> T'was you who raised the 'religion card,' (among other controversial
matters)
> Bastos. It was you sharing what you found funny in impersonating a member
of
> your faith and taking tithings in humor. And again, my hard-headed Kano,
I
> presumed that "one had to be there to see the humor," and I went to to
further
> presume that it might have been funny. But no, you went into some
diatribe
> in justifying what you did (as humor), and in an entertaining manner at
that.
>
> Um-hm. Yet, now I see how you convolute your reasoning here. In
attempting
> to justify what you said in your quip over the Japanese soldiers graves
> in the RP, and fabricating it into this weak, yet uncompelling reason(s)
> for justifying your (I assume) contempt for a certain religious
denomination,
> which ever that might be, you combine the two. Whow! Nice tact, but it
> doesn't wash here, Bastos.
Sorry, no apologies to the Japanese. Their culture was imperialistic then
and is now, although the weapons have changed. What the Japanese did to the
Philippines cannot be forgotten or forgiven, and I am "intolerant" of
anything that serves to honor what Japanese soldiers did in and to the
Philippines. The Japanese are still in denial about their actions, and
rewrite history to suit themselves. I will not. *Non-sequitur alert* (in
your way of thinking): The Japanese did more damage than the US bases, but
you find yourself defending them against my anger. Sorta an odd place to
be, doncha think?
I have no contempt for religious denominations. I have studied them, and
their effects on history, as an integral part of my Dominican education (the
Dominicans taught me religious history and philosophy and the Franciscans
taught me theological history and theology). One need not feel contempt for
a philosophy or theology to criticize how it is implemented in a social
setting. One of the dangers facing social, political and economic reform in
the RP is the unwillingness of some to confront those aspects of the RCC
that are at least partially to blame. If you complain of foot pain and
someone points out that there there is a nail through your show, and you
say, "Maybe my shoe's too tight", you are not going to quickly solve the
problem. An obese person with adult onset diabetes or high blood pressure
may be unwilling to accept that their obesity is an issue, but it is, a
possibly deadly one. For the RP to thrive and prosper, nothing can remain
sacred in the quest for solving problems. If people say, "But those things
that we hold sacred that are harming us define what we are," you have a
choice to make.
> Furthermore, this isn't about 'some whiteboy' as you so eloquently term,
> criticizing the ills and problems of a nation and her people, it's really
> about the preception one leaves behind when declaring matters as such
To some degree, I am responsible for the impression I leave behind. But if
someone steadfastly refuses to accept either further explanations of my
intent (it's called "communications") or even acknowledge when I state that
my position has changed, that person holds sole responsibility for any
aftertaste. I cannot help you there.
> ...And in terms of 'pigeonholing,' well, if you haven't noticed, I've been
> leaving that up to you.
Hmmm. Calling me intolerant isn't pigeonholing?
This is silly, because you quoted this passage in your last reply:
: "I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that
just
: because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
: too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
: investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
: upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
: today). Find the facts. Clean the mess. Reasonably compensate any
: demonstrated victims. I know it's not that simple, but it sorta boils
down
: to that in my mind."
Doesn't this sound like I am calling for an investigation? What part of the
above do you say supports my alleged contention that the US is blameless and
I believe there is "-no- possibility" of a connection? Come on, you're
fighting a battle where I have conceded much of the point! I have also
concurred in another portion of this thread or the other one on toxics that
PP2's position that this will be handled between governments, and is in fact
underway, is the best venue. Again, you cannot keep hammering at these
silly notions that I am claiming the US is blameless, that it shouldn't be
adjudicated, that there is no connection, etc. If you were found at home
with your wife, who had just been brutally murdered, would you want to have
a chance to prove your innocence or would you rather they just string you up
because you're not very well liked around town?
> Perhaps, blind-faith in the benevolence of both the US & RP government,
and
> what some bureaucrat at the RP CDC has to say about the well waters there?
> And while you continue to make examples out of your family experience,
which
> I sincerely offer my empathy, of and for whatever reasons of your kin
passing
> away, this again has no bearing upon this matter of international concern
and
> those Filipinos who are seeking justice and compensation in this
> matter.
I was trained and served as a preacher for years. We use stories to
illustrate points. It has a certain history in our profession, dating back
a few years. Sorry if these illustrations do not reach you, but I'll
continue to use them. Habit and homiletics.
> But before I am once again -detracted- by your impassioned retort,
> and non-sequitur, I must admit, your words are compelling, Bastos
> ...Now where did you say it "MAY NOT be actionable?" Hmmm? Your
> declaration here appears pretty emphatic:
>
> "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine
whether
> there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected range
> of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
> statement, but not an actionable one ..."
Geez, read the words, don't just paste. What part of "determine whether" do
you not understand? That clearly indicates an investigation, and a lack of
a final judgement from me either way. Just because you believe the facts do
not merit investigation, do not fault me for wanting to be certain of the
truth. Too many people on death row have been exonerated by advances in DNA
technology after "open and shut cases" for anyone to state that an
investigation is not called for.
Oh, please, that is pathetic. I need no sympathy from you for my family.
The more I read, the more I have to throw my hands up in dispair. OK, think
of this -- if I tell a story about a fluffy pink rabbit to illustrate a
point, amd I saying Filipinos are fluffy pink rabbits? You said as much
before. If I say that the Catholic church has practiced religious
imperialism, am I showing contenpt for the RCC? If I say you don't read
carefully, am I saying you are stupid? You have to draw your own
conclusions, and your are retreating into the absurd. You quote back huge
sections, fixate on one word or sentence out of context, then make some
broad generalization that doesn't even apply to that sentence! How can I
answer that kind of Jabberwocky?
> Whoa. I'll go a step further. Where was the US/RP government when pleas
for
> assistance fell on deaf ears when signs of toxic poisoning began to
surface
> there at CABCOM? Did it take a independent and grassroots effort to
> "investigate" this for the US/RP government to take notice? Of course,
> and now we are where we are in this -ahem- 'investigation,' and
lacksadasical
> action by RP legislators currently in the US.
Seems to me I read that the RPG offered to move the lahar victims
(remember?). One reason they gave for staying was that they didn't want to
pull their children out of local schools. When I pointed out the problem
with this attitude, you said (I think it was you, but it's not worth the
time to retrace) something to the effect that it shows how dedicated they
are to their children's education. "Well, Jun died of mercury poisoning,
but he died educated." Probably the RPG should have been more forceful, as
they would in evacuating people from a lava flow. The fact is that some
action was attempted (and I believe some did leave).
And from what others have posted, it appears that both the USG and RPG
discussed the issues even before the withdrawal of US forces. This would
also cloud the liability issue in a legal and moral sense (spreading the
blame, not eliminating it).
> : Frankly, I think it rather ironic that this group of "elite" folks is so
> : often speaking for the common citizens of the RP. Some here may have
> : emerged from poverty, but odds are that in having access to this forum
they
> : are in an earning category and social class far above the majority of
> : Filipinos in the RP. If they have beaten the system and pulled
themselves
> : out of poverty to achieve success they are in a small minority. Our
> : observations are probably not from the perspective of someone who
considers
> : living in a garbage dump and having an "occupation" there preferential
to
> : moving elsewhere where they have no source of livlihood.
>
> Now we are back to the "garbage dump" thingy ...Gee, with the suggestion
> of biased 'elitism' by those who have access to soc.culture.filipino to
> boot! Will the non-sequiturs and meandering ever cease? And what this
> has to do with you being against this case going to trial is somewhat
> beyond me.
It should be self-evident that this group is not representative of the
majority of Filipinos in the RP. According to Dr. Mahar Mangahas of Social
Weather Stations, only 1% of Filipinos in the RP have internet access (as of
Dec 1999). One percent is a fairly elite crowd. The educational level, job
experience and intelligence ("bandwidth" as JT would say) of the people here
is above the norm in just about any environment outside a university.
Pull out your dictionary, and look up "aside". You see, there are no rules
to what I write here -- I decide what to include. I will inject any asides
I want, any illustrations I desire, and any examples I choose. The
necessity of illustrations is demonstrated by your inability to grasp very
elemental aspects of what I say. I include illustrations and stories to
help you see the point. You keep missing it, unfortunately.
Perhaps you view this group as unbiased and filled with people who represent
the majority of citizens in the RP? I don't think so. Read the education
and income statistics put out by the government, the SWS and others.
What does this have to do with toxics on Clark? Aside from the fact that
the people who are discussing it here have no real ties to the people there,
have no direct involvement, and have only a passing acquaintance with the
facts gained through media sources (PP2 excepted)? It means that all of us,
myself notably included, are participating in an intellectual exercise that
the elite practice of solving the worlds problems from a distance. What we
called "bull sessions" in undergrad school. And yes, I find that ironic.
And on topic.
> : Yes, but what makes you believe that your "observation" has meaning to
me?
> : Who are you, and what have you said or done, for me to take your words
to
> : heart? You do not demonstrate any compelling reason for me to agree
with
> : you, you merely make "observations" about my intollerance, my
insensitivity,
> : my anti-Filipino sentiments. That strikes me as criticism.
>
> Ah. I see. I'm nobody for you to 'take my words to heart,' but in the
> -context- of our exchange, and the manner in which you pour your own
> heart (& kin) to bear out here, one could readily ask that of yourself.
> But that's neither here nor there, it does however demonstrate just to
> what measures one would take in convoluting a matter as simple as whether
> or not this case goes to trial. Be that as it may, you did indeed
hyperbole
> my simple reply where I stated:
Again, so obtuse for such an intelligent person. Read the third sentence in
what you quote from me above. The point is that you give me no reason to
value your observations; critical observations from strangers is called
"criticism". You don't tell me WHY you think the things you do, and we have
no history which allows me to understand why you say the things you do (say,
if you were my priest, or my doctor, or my professor, or my friend whose
judgement I have learned to value over a period of time), so how can your
negative "observations" be taken as anything but criticism? It kinda
follows...
> "I suppose one had to be there catch the humor ..."
>
> Di ba? And who I am in terms of this 'reply' is who you were attempting
> to convey some concept of humor however you deem funny, and myself
offering
> nothing more sharing an observation completely with the context of SCF.
> But that's a minor asidein and of the crux of the point of order involving
> those seeking justicein Clark, but a tangent that I pursued and thus again
> extrapolated the fallacy therein.
>
> : As to why I do not "chat" online, my schedule (and my inclination) do
not
> : allow it. This is not a SCF thing -- when ICQ first came along many
friends
> : around the world used it, and while I took a stab at it I never got into
it.
> : I cannot rearrange my schedule to fit in with others; NGs allow me to
> : converse whenever and wherever I have the time. I've a a family that is
the
> : center of my universe, plus a business to run 7/365 that goes almost 24
> : hours a day. I sneak these sessions in when time permits.
>
> Well I do appreciate you at least trying. Nevertheless, the effort that
> you've employed to this point is commendable and by the same token I can
> relate to your responsibilities. And on the otherhand, this exercise is
> quite stimulating to see to what lengths you'd go in re-constructing your
> argument(s) ;-)
And the lengths you go to misread and distort what I say. Splendid
exercise, what?
Sorry. Evasion. Smoke and mirrors. If you have something to say, be
honest and say it, don't imply. Dancing around it like this trying to be
clever merely indicates that you probably don't want to answer the question.
Because you seek to keep your personal life personal? You just spent a
bunch of words "hinting" at several things in a fashion designed to mislead
that were nonetheless as personal as saying something concrete. More so,
because I can interpret the above many ways, some which paint you as the
scoundrel. Say it or don't say it. Don't hide behind some third-person
narrative. But again, you don't answer questions, you just obfuscate...
> And as for 'genetics,' I see just how (sic) profound your thinking is in
this
> matter which has nothing to do with the racial, or ethnic make up of those
> involved in this matter in Clark - And in citation of your contention that
> this is all about some ignorant anti-American endeavor, which of course
was
> acknowledged when you ascertained that the US was not the only defendant
> named in the class-action suit, eh? And again, if I haven't stated this
> enough already, this isn't about US=white RP=brown, or the pigmentation
> of those involved ...But of a matter of principle, responsibility and
> juris prudence.
Improper use of (sic). Stop trying to impress us. Speak and write plainly.
Sigh. perhaps when you grow up you'll understand. I'm tired of sitting in
the hall of the Freshman dorm talking with you.
Get this. I don't need or want pity. I have what a whole lot of people in
the world want. I envy no one (well, perhaps Bill Gates) and have a heck of
a lot of fun in being just where I want to be in life. When I talk about my
family, it is to try to give you and others a glimpse into who I am and what
I stand for. It's one reason I am one of the very few here who uses his
full name, reveal my true email, and even give people links to my web page
to see my family. I use a handle so there will be no question as to who or
what I am. Since my family is the most important thing to me, is it any
wonder that they make their way into so many of my posts? If you think
having a great family is a "pity-point", then I have to pity you. You hide
behind a facade, behind euphemisms and allusions. That's your choice, but I
would feel dishonest doing that.
I am myself, and you find fault in it because you don't understand me.
That's your problem, not mine. I've done all I can to help you, but have to
admit defeat. Your impenetrable preconceptions are beyond even my
prodigious powers to crack.
> Quite a stretch from your initial position against having the case tried,
and
> while I wholeheartedly comprehend each and every word you've stated and
shared
> to this point which has very little semblence to what we are trying to
achieve
> in obtaining some consensus over Clark, it's now somewhat clear where you
> are coming from. You have no affinity for a nation (per se) where the
> 'significant half' and reasons by which you are here, your family is from,
> and for that fact spout confrontational opinions in a newsgroup of those
> who are of the same ethnicity, yet you justify your position via faulty
> analogies, non-sequiturs and just about every compositional fallacy under
> the sun, over not having the trial held at all based on your endearing
> 'love, and respect for your family?' Whow! And while I applaud and
respect
> you for that, t sounds a wee-bit convoluted doncha' think? Nevertheless,
> it's just your opinion on this subtle issue over the "toxics," the
"suffering,"
> and the "deaths" in Clark which you presume isn't worthy of a
courtroom/justice,
> and from a perspective that is quite tangential to say the least.
Wake up! Show me where I say that no trial should be held and I'll hail you
as the greatest dialogician since Socrates. Since I never said that (you
say it how many times in every post? Know what the "big lie" is? Tell a
lie long enough, and loud enough, and eventually people will believe it?) it
will be hard to prove. Pull off your blinders and realize you are not
nearly as clever as you think. Too much repetition. Too many misused
words. Too many direct contradictions in your followups to what you've
quoted above.
> But that doesn't mean that this exchange is by any means over
...Especially in
> and of this quote:
>
> " The town next to where I live in CA has a big Chevron refinery. Every
few years,
> they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind of emissions. Instantly
thousands
> of residents go to local hospitals and stand in line for hours for
"treatment" so
> they can get in on a settlement ..."
>
>
> "Every few years?" Hmm. "Discharge the wrong kind of emmissions?" Ah.
Interesting,
> given the fact that the Avon facility there in Contra Costa had two (2)
accidents
> within a calendar year involving fires ...And can one imagine what sort of
"wrong kind
> of emissions," that entailed, eh? But here is a government report
on -that- matter.
Wrong place. I'm talking about the Chevron refinery in Richmond. You're
referring to Tosco. But facts never get in your way...
>
> Of course those suffering in Clark are not worthy of such an
"investigation," "legal
> recourse," nor "venue" until -ALL- the facts are in, right? Again, I'm
simply alluding
> and getting a better understanding of your non-sequitur above.
Gee, Dom, you're right. I don't think anything should be done. Ignore
everything that I've said to the contrary, you were able to see right
through my superficial words to my real meaning. (FYI -- that's
"sarcasm" -- look it up if you have any questions).
Randy
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:10:36 GMT, Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina <n...@cat5global.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:54:55 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
>>>>>message news:Aplh5.401433$MB.63...@news6.giganews.com...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:20:19 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>> :Let's see -- because I offend your religious sensibilities, I am
>>>> :intollerant. Not a whole lot of sense in that.
>>>> Pls. read my followup again, and where did I suggest that you 'offended
>>>> my religious sensibilities?' I merely stated that 'one had to be there
>>>> to catch the humor,' in and of whatever it was that you thought was punny.
>>>> Heck, and if I were there, perhaps I would of thought of it as ROFL
>>>> hilarious.
>>: I got that from your admonishment against religious humor, your claiming I
>>: am intollerant (I can see that you just HATE intollerant people! an old Tom
>>: Lehrer line), and saying that I should be careful what I post here.
>>Awww. Again, please don't get hung up on the semantics, Bastos ...Heheheh,
>>do look up the term 'intolerant,' and consider this tid-bit, in and of this
>>context, 'kay?
>>o " Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet
>> I have not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any
>> responses here. Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they
>> lived there and got sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She
>> looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
>> this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the nature
>> or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
>> Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
>> ' bandwagon.' ..."
>>
>>re: <http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=650658770.1&mhitnum=9&CONTEXT=965136707.663617548>
>>
>>See the "intolerance" here? : ) Oh, but what of this erudite resolution
>>to this matter?
>>
>>o "You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up
>> any toxic contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP
>> compensates the US for the 'tenant improvements' ..."
>>
>> re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
>>
>>And again, please, read my follow up again because you are missing a point
>>or two, if not the who gist of our exchange altogether.
>Websters Online defines it as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a :
>unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious
>matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional
>rights : BIGOTED
Also applicable to this 'term' is "excitability," "insolence," "misjudgment,"
and "dissent," all of which are just as applicable. And why you infer
this along superficially charged racial-lines is beyond me, yet, let's
look at your quote again - There is no mistaking in just how 'narrow'
it is, and which defined/prefaced your entry into this exchange (ie.
"assuming deaths").
>No. Perhaps you can explicate, based upon Webster's definition. Is asking
>for a clarification, and being unwilling to draw a scientific conclusion
>based upon claims made by litigants, intolerant? Show me SPECIFICS, not
>just long quotes, and explain why you think it shows my intolerance.
>Actually, you will see that I am arguing AGAINT the intolerance of people
>who refuse to acknowledge that the US ever did any good by the RP or
>Filipinos, or who jump on a bandwagon.
'Specifically' speaking and in the context of your quote above, are you
now waffling by suggesting that you weren't being pretty much 'intolerant'
when you presumed that this was nothing more than some 'witch hunt' by
'anti-American rhetoric?' It's a knee-jerk alright, and to what extent
is reasonably clear.
>Is in intolerant to ask that *some* consideration be given, if only lip
>service, to the incredible physical resources the bases left behind?
>Nowhere have I seen ANYONE critical of the US here admit that these bases
>provide a great economic opportunity and infrastructure in areas that are
>not nearly as soundly built. The people I have talked with in the
>Philippines recognize how important a resource they are, but I guess to
>admit the obvious appears to undermine the position that some take that NO
>good came out of the US military in the RP (actually, I know several people
>in this NG who might be considered good that came out of US bases...).
Your verbose meandering does not, in anyway detract from what was conveyed
in your "witch hunt" declaration, which to this point was construed as
'intolerant,' and call it what you will per Webster, and whatever one
deems as a definition it is without doubt pretty concise.
>>>> :Tell me, were you born pompous and without a sense of humor, or did it
>>>> :evolve? Why pick on me when there are others here who flat out blaspheme
>>>> :and preach intollerance here? Could it possibly be the color of my skin
>>>> :and nationality? And you were talking about "intollerant"?
>>
>>>> Oh come now, I'm not 'picking on you!' Heck, and look who is being
>>>> "pompous," and without a "sense of humor?" I wasn't the one out here
>>>> trolling Filipino sensitivities, and sensibilities with:
>>>>
>>>>o "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine
>>>> whether there is any indication that these deaths are out of the
>>>> expected range of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there
>>>> will die] is a true statement, but not an actionable one ..."
>>>>
>>>> & who could ever forget ...
>>>>
>>>>o "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
>>>> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
>>>> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
>>>> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
>>>> transaction, too."
>>>>
>>>> re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
>>>>
>>>> And the slough of non-sequiturs and fallacies which suggested that
>>>> this class action suit by those Filipinos in Clark, against the
>>>> US and RP gov'ts (which you later found out NOT to be borne of
>>>> "anti-American hate rhetoric"), is without merit, and whom you
>>>> would prefer not to seek compensation, or for that fact their
>>>> day-in-court with their grievance and allegation. And heck, I
>>>> found this early contention of your's not only preposterous, but
>>>> very, very amusing!
>>
>>: What is the first thing that investigators do when looking into claims that
>>: something caused something else? You must show a causal relationship which
>>: extends beyond "there are toxics there, and toxics are known to cause these
>>: symptoms." For instance, if you are attempting to demonstrate that smoking
>>: causes certain illnesses, you have to compare the incidence of illness with
>>: a sample population of the same size which does not smoke to determine
>>: whether there is an actual increase in the incidence that can be only
>>: attributable to the factor you are isolating. I guess you misread my quote
>>: above -- I am not stating that everyone living in the motor pool will die
>>: from contamination and showing callous indifference thereto, just that they
>>: will die (as we all will). Because someone has an illness or dies does not,
>>: in the isolated instance, denote a connection. The fact that all people
>>: living today anywhere will die is no referent to their living conditions.
>>: The fact that people have certain diseases that can be caused by certain
>>: forms of contamination does not mean they were. The articles under
>>: discussion involved statements about samples taken from wells the Philippine
>>: CDC says are not source for drinking water, and thus though the contaminants
>>: were found the people may not have been exposed to them. Forgive me for not
>>: simply siding with the people making claims when others, of equal or greater
>>: stature, are indicating that they do not see a cause-effect relationship.
>>: Actually, my quote above *demonstrates* my sense of humor, in that I state
>>: the obvious that all people will die. If you misread that because you
>>: *presume* I have some anti-Filipino attutude, then you need to examine your
>>: own prejudices and presuppositions.
>>And remember, those initial "investigators" were not from the US military
>>& government, they were independent and backed by certain legislators in the
>>RP government to "investigate." And now, how many years now? Since the
>>first signs of toxic contamination(s) began to appear in and of those who
>>went in and populated the abandoned former base/sites around the RP are
>>they now coming to a presumption that there was no 'causal relationship?'
>>And again, you cited simply 'one' contention from the CDC and hyperboled
>>it into this protracted meandering retort of a thread.
>>
>>Please. Think about it, just because these people were suffering from maladies
>>that are not the usual or normal, such as typhoid, malaria, or a number
>>of diseases indigenous to this province or locale, but symptoms that suggest
>>that it may be the result of toxic poisoning, there is -no- possibility that
>>this was attributed to the chemicals that the USAF stored and housed there?
>>Hmmm. And I see quite clearly where your own 'prejudices,' and 'humor'
>>lies within this tragedy, and/or at the expense who are suffering, and or
>>have died. Yet, one's apologistic manner in attempting to diminish the
>>gravity of this, and deflect where part of the responsibility lays, is
>>just as transparent.
>Again, your perspective has you reading my words incorrectly. Point out
>where I say there is -no- possibility that the problems were the result of
>toxic poisoning? I haven't ever written that. I have said that one cannot
>assume that, that there does not appear to be (in the sources cited)
>incontrovertable evidence of a link. I also say that there probably is one.
>How is that saying there is -no- possibility? You read the following:
In terms of -no- possibility, your perceived opposition to having this trial
held, for whatever 'causal relationship' you deem is required, surely suggests
it - Which to this point is nothing more than a rebut to your own "assumptions."
>And you know what? The more I read about this, the more I agree that there
>is a connection (not that I ever thought there wasn't -- I just believed
>that it hadn't been adequately demonstrated, and that people with anti-US
>perspectives were accepting as the conclusions of the plaintiffs not because
>of science but because of philosophy. That's what the OJ jury did, and I
>don't think that's justice). Someone has to play Devil's advocate here to
>keep the anti-US sentiment from running too strong. You see, I can take a
>skeptical stance all the while believing it is true. I may feel certain
>someone is guilty of a crime, but want to make sure the evidence is there
>before locking them away. And again, I do not feel a civil suit of
>outlandish proportions is the best way to go about it. The best way is to
>have governmental meetings where RP representatives show up. So many of the
>reports I read prior to Erap's visit stated that the US would probably give
>him what he asked for because of the relationship between our countries.
>Toxic cleanup and reparations would have been a key target, but was blown.
I'm heartened to see (can I use that term?) that you are coming around
...Heheheh, "not that I ever thought there wasn't." Think about it,
you were having an exchange with me, not with the "anti-US perspectives"
out here. But I suppose that is where we draw the line huh? All the
meandering non-sequiturs, fallacies, etc. etc. Heck, and I recall you
declaring that objectivity doesn't exist out here : )
>>: Which statement above is incorrect? Are there not monuments honoring
>>: Japanese soldiers (whether simple grave markers or more)? Did not Japanese
>>: soldiers die in the Philippines? Did they not kill, maim, torture, rape and
>>: enslave Filipinos during the course of their invasion and occupation? Did
>>: the Japanese not pay for the privelege of erecting their markers? Am I not
>>: allowed to wonder at the irony here? Just as I might wonder about the irony
>>: of the toxic problem being such a big issue that 7 of 9 Filipino senators
>>: failed to show up at the key meeting on the subject with US legislators? Or
>>: is that "trolling", too?
>>
>>Thanks for that non-sequitur, Bastos ...But I was offering a direct in regard
>>to your declaration:
>>
>> "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
>> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
>> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
>> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
>> transaction, too."
>>
>>...And are you feebly attempting to back-peddle or even deny having taken
>>this postulation, in a weak attempt to back a contention filled with
>>fallacies? And again, might I remind you that the RP gov't are also
>>named as defendants in the class-action suit. Hmmm.
>You LOVE that word, non-sequitur, and over-use it whenever you do not have a
>response (except when you are calling me intolerant or some other cheap
>label). I am talking about irony, two specific instances of it. Not a
>non-sequitur at all. Calling it that is your way of not addressing the
>questions I pose, because you can't. When you debate, try to respond to
>specifics, rather than just regurgitate and label. "This is intolerance
>(somewhere in the above sentences. You guess where)." "This is a
>non-sequitur (any examples you use are non-sequiturs)." Had you been with
>Jesus' audience, you would have said "But we're not talking about a widow
>here, or a wedding, or a son. Non-sequiturs, Jesus -- just answer the
>questions!"
Huh??? Actually, if the "label" fits apply it. You weren't "specific" in
your "witch hunt" quip, nor were you specific in this quote above involving
the Japanese graves in the RP. And when called on it, you dive into a
protracted, and meandering discourse meant to obfuscate ...Obviously ...In
order to convolute the reasoning in and of the initial declaration. Now,
while I'm trying to fathom where you are coming from in a desperate attempt
to reach the 'specifics,' it's muddled even more with matters quite detached
from whatever point is being addressed just the same (ie. religion, race, and
in an impassioned plea for sympathy), which of course has little to no bearing
upon the topic of discussion: "Toxics In Clark" Now how we came to these
subjects was the result of your own meandering "non sequiturs," and which you
seem to have a problem in dealing with.
>Hunh? What does that have to do with the above? What "postulation" (from
>your usage, probably the wrong term, making it even harder to understand
>you. Stop trying to sound like a Freshman comp writer; use smaller words
>you are more certain of). This doesn't make any sense, except for you to
>use the words "postulation" and "fallacies" in the same sentence. What
>fallacies? That I'm claiming there is -no- possibility of a connection?
>Not really a fallacy, and not what I said. Perhaps if you wrote earlier in
>your day?
Interesting tact, Bastos : ) Are you now critiquing my compositional prose
and style of debate? Hahahahaa ...No need to nit-pick over my usage of
words, and your perceived opinion of my demeanor in this exchange. Yet,
let's get to the 'specifics' shall we? More importantly, let's not
"detract" from the point-of-order here, which I'm sure you are subtly
attempting to do. Nevertheless, we'll get to the 'connection' in good
time. Now please bring your seat to an upright position, secure the
tray/table in front of you, relax and enjoy : )
>>: I never said it was without merit; I said it was not an open and shut case
>>: that several folks here assumed it was, that full responsibility should not
>>: fall on the USG (and later, the USG and RPG), and that I did not believe
>>: this was the appropriate venue. Read my clarification below:
>>
>>: "I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that just
>>: because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
>>: too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
>>: investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
>>: upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
>>: today). Find the facts. Clean the mess. Reasonably compensate any
>>: demonstrated victims. I know it's not that simple, but it sorta boils down
>>: to that in my mind."
>>
>>Of course it isn't an "open and shut case," and what better way to have
>>the -truth- ascertained by ajudicating this matter, which it appears that
>>you wholeheartedly opposed. And again, this isn't about some 'envious
>>anti-American sentiment so common today,' (cit. yet another hasty
>>generalization), since that was de-bunked some time back on this thread
>>when you learned that the US wasn't the only defendants in this.
>Show me ONCE where I have said it should not be adjudicated! Yes, I believe
>that a civil suit is the wrong venue -- for one thing, such a suit requires
>a tremendous amount of resources, which I doubt are available. I have
>maintained that this is a governmental matter, possibly an extragovernmental
>matter for an organization like the WHO. It is a matter for the honorable
>politicians of the RPG and USG to work out, and they seem to be working
>toward it. The governmental process may or may not take as long as a civil
>process, but the civil process if rife with uncertainties, beginning with
>jurisdiction and venue. Now, twist this -- this should not be a matter of a
>civil suit but of negotiations between nations, since it involves tricky
>multinational agreements and decisions. I am NOT saying the mess should not
>be cleaned up, and I am NOT saying people should not be compensated. Get
>it?
Well, why didn't you say that in the first place without having to suggest
that this was nothing more than 'anti-American rhetoric?' Hmmm. You've
come a long way in defining your position on this, Bastos and I was confident
and objectively certain that some semblence of rationality could be drawn
from an exchange with you. But let's delve a little more into your objection
to a civil suit. I believe it's been nearly a decade since the USAF abandoned
the base there in Clark, now wouldn't you think that some sort action would've
been taken during the interim? What I mean to say here is that it took a
grass-roots, non-government and independent effort to bring this "problem" into
the 'proverbial light.' And now that it has, this effort to illuminate this
"problem" one would want to exclude those who for the most part have the pertinent
information, data ...And facts? Moreover, to leave the ultimate decision as to
'what to do' about this "problem" to those who ignored it in the first place?
Interesting ...Why do you think this class-action (civil) suit exists? Think
'bout that please. And why not a 'civil process,' since one believes that
the negligence in and over this by gov't was not 'criminal?'
>And understand that when I say that the US should pay when they are
>compensated for "tenant improvements" that is irony, too. I know darn well
>that no one will ever compensate the USG for the bases. And I have also
>stated that I believe the US should pay. Those structures and
>infrastructures are a form of aid. Too bad no one had the decency to say
>even a qualified "Thank you."
No sir, you waffled when you were painfully corrected in and of this thingy
over 'tenant improvements,' come non-sequitur.
>>T'was you who raised the 'religion card,' (among other controversial matters)
>>Bastos. It was you sharing what you found funny in impersonating a member of
>>your faith and taking tithings in humor. And again, my hard-headed Kano, I
>>presumed that "one had to be there to see the humor," and I went to to further
>>presume that it might have been funny. But no, you went into some diatribe
>>in justifying what you did (as humor), and in an entertaining manner at that.
>>
>>Um-hm. Yet, now I see how you convolute your reasoning here. In attempting
>>to justify what you said in your quip over the Japanese soldiers graves
>>in the RP, and fabricating it into this weak, yet uncompelling reason(s)
>>for justifying your (I assume) contempt for a certain religious denomination,
>>which ever that might be, you combine the two. Whow! Nice tact, but it
>>doesn't wash here, Bastos.
>Sorry, no apologies to the Japanese. Their culture was imperialistic then
>and is now, although the weapons have changed. What the Japanese did to the
>Philippines cannot be forgotten or forgiven, and I am "intolerant" of
>anything that serves to honor what Japanese soldiers did in and to the
>Philippines. The Japanese are still in denial about their actions, and
>rewrite history to suit themselves. I will not. *Non-sequitur alert* (in
>your way of thinking): The Japanese did more damage than the US bases, but
>you find yourself defending them against my anger. Sorta an odd place to
>be, doncha think?
Oh no, Bastos. It's not so much the "Japanese" aspect of your non-sequitur,
but the suggestion that the Philippines is morally corrupt eg. 'by allowing
graves to be erected' - And please re-consider your thoughts on this:
"I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
transaction, too."
Yes, there are some phrases here that require a wee-bit of attention
such as, '...Coming from a country' and '...money involved in that
transaction too' are indeed compelling, doncha think? And your
inference was? You are too easy, Bastos : )
>I have no contempt for religious denominations. I have studied them, and
>their effects on history, as an integral part of my Dominican education (the
>Dominicans taught me religious history and philosophy and the Franciscans
>taught me theological history and theology). One need not feel contempt for
>a philosophy or theology to criticize how it is implemented in a social
>setting. One of the dangers facing social, political and economic reform in
>the RP is the unwillingness of some to confront those aspects of the RCC
>that are at least partially to blame. If you complain of foot pain and
>someone points out that there there is a nail through your show, and you
>say, "Maybe my shoe's too tight", you are not going to quickly solve the
>problem. An obese person with adult onset diabetes or high blood pressure
>may be unwilling to accept that their obesity is an issue, but it is, a
>possibly deadly one. For the RP to thrive and prosper, nothing can remain
>sacred in the quest for solving problems. If people say, "But those things
>that we hold sacred that are harming us define what we are," you have a
>choice to make.
Perhaps 'contempt' was the wrong word ...Perhaps 'indiscriminate,' and or
'disrespectful,' would be more appropriate. And while I laud you for your
pursuit(s) in & of certain religo-philisophical endeavors, why prod those
who are more intimate with their faith? You know as well as I do how
predominantly Christian/Catholic the Philippines is. You come into this
thread, with the banner of slighting religion (your religion) in sharing
your story about impersonating a priest and taking tithings ...Heheheh,
and again, I suppose one had to be there to see the humor, and that's what
I imparted, yes? But no, the non-sequitur and length of this aspect of our
exchange is now where it is - Nowhere. But look around, threads involving
religion will pop up now and then on SCF, but hardly in the context of
"Toxics In Clark."
>>Furthermore, this isn't about 'some whiteboy' as you so eloquently term,
>>criticizing the ills and problems of a nation and her people, it's really
>>about the preception one leaves behind when declaring matters as such
>>...And in terms of 'pigeonholing,' well, if you haven't noticed, I've been
>>leaving that up to you.
>To some degree, I am responsible for the impression I leave behind. But if
>someone steadfastly refuses to accept either further explanations of my
>intent (it's called "communications") or even acknowledge when I state that
>my position has changed, that person holds sole responsibility for any
>aftertaste. I cannot help you there.
As negligent as it was, I'm pretty certain of that : )
Just a reminder, mind you.
>Doesn't this sound like I am calling for an investigation? What part of the
>above do you say supports my alleged contention that the US is blameless and
>I believe there is "-no- possibility" of a connection? Come on, you're
>fighting a battle where I have conceded much of the point! I have also
>concurred in another portion of this thread or the other one on toxics that
>PP2's position that this will be handled between governments, and is in fact
>underway, is the best venue. Again, you cannot keep hammering at these
>silly notions that I am claiming the US is blameless, that it shouldn't be
>adjudicated, that there is no connection, etc. If you were found at home
>with your wife, who had just been brutally murdered, would you want to have
>a chance to prove your innocence or would you rather they just string you up
>because you're not very well liked around town?
You made it pretty clear in this recent reply your position on this. Yet,
I'm still wondering why the slough confrontational non-sequiturs and the
manner in which you introduced yourself into this thread. Which of course,
was pretty plain to see. Trolling? Perhaps.
>>Perhaps, blind-faith in the benevolence of both the US & RP government, and
>>what some bureaucrat at the RP CDC has to say about the well waters there?
>>And while you continue to make examples out of your family experience, which
>>I sincerely offer my empathy, of and for whatever reasons of your kin passing
>>away, this again has no bearing upon this matter of international concern and
>>those Filipinos who are seeking justice and compensation in this
>>matter.
>I was trained and served as a preacher for years. We use stories to
>illustrate points. It has a certain history in our profession, dating back
>a few years. Sorry if these illustrations do not reach you, but I'll
>continue to use them. Habit and homiletics.
I see where the pontification comes from ...Inclusive of the meandering,
fallacies and non-sequiturs ;-)
>>But before I am once again -detracted- by your impassioned retort,
>>and non-sequitur, I must admit, your words are compelling, Bastos
>>...Now where did you say it "MAY NOT be actionable?" Hmmm? Your
>>declaration here appears pretty emphatic:
>>
>> "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine whether
>> there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected range
>> of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
>> statement, but not an actionable one ..."
>Geez, read the words, don't just paste. What part of "determine whether" do
>you not understand? That clearly indicates an investigation, and a lack of
>a final judgement from me either way. Just because you believe the facts do
>not merit investigation, do not fault me for wanting to be certain of the
>truth. Too many people on death row have been exonerated by advances in DNA
>technology after "open and shut cases" for anyone to state that an
>investigation is not called for.
Whow. Now we are delving into the "death penalty!" No, Bastos, just be
'specific' as to how you suggested that it "may not" as opposed to your
emphatic declaration in "but not." Can I get an 'amen?' : )
"Huge sections?" they were key quotes that you just as soon dismiss
..."Broad generalization(s)?" Hehehe ...You'd be the one to know of
them. C'mon, Bastos don't give up on me now. Think about the 'broad
generalization' in your parable(s) involving your kin. A wee-bit detached
from the 'specifics' of the case involving Clark, doncha think? And
on 'absurdity,' yes there comes a point in any exchange that a certain
critical mass (for use of a better term) is attained - But to what extent
has yet to be determined regardless of the length and means it is achieved.
>>Whoa. I'll go a step further. Where was the US/RP government when pleas for
>>assistance fell on deaf ears when signs of toxic poisoning began to surface
>>there at CABCOM? Did it take a independent and grassroots effort to
>>"investigate" this for the US/RP government to take notice? Of course,
>>and now we are where we are in this -ahem- 'investigation,' and lacksadasical
>>action by RP legislators currently in the US.
>Seems to me I read that the RPG offered to move the lahar victims
>(remember?). One reason they gave for staying was that they didn't want to
>pull their children out of local schools. When I pointed out the problem
>with this attitude, you said (I think it was you, but it's not worth the
>time to retrace) something to the effect that it shows how dedicated they
>are to their children's education. "Well, Jun died of mercury poisoning,
>but he died educated." Probably the RPG should have been more forceful, as
>they would in evacuating people from a lava flow. The fact is that some
>action was attempted (and I believe some did leave).
You are shifting blame here, Bastos and yet another fallacy. Please stick to
the 'specifics' in the context of my assertation. And while there is no doubt
that some of those afflicted are partly to blame, given the numerous warning
in and of Pinatubo as well as CABCOM, what did it take to have this matter
addressed by both governments? My how you meander.
>>: Frankly, I think it rather ironic that this group of "elite" folks is so
>>: often speaking for the common citizens of the RP. Some here may have
>>: emerged from poverty, but odds are that in having access to this forum they
>>: are in an earning category and social class far above the majority of
>>: Filipinos in the RP. If they have beaten the system and pulled themselves
>>: out of poverty to achieve success they are in a small minority. Our
>>: observations are probably not from the perspective of someone who considers
>>: living in a garbage dump and having an "occupation" there preferential to
>>: moving elsewhere where they have no source of livlihood.
>>
>>Now we are back to the "garbage dump" thingy ...Gee, with the suggestion
>>of biased 'elitism' by those who have access to soc.culture.filipino to
>>boot! Will the non-sequiturs and meandering ever cease? And what this
>>has to do with you being against this case going to trial is somewhat
>>beyond me.
>It should be self-evident that this group is not representative of the
>majority of Filipinos in the RP. According to Dr. Mahar Mangahas of Social
>Weather Stations, only 1% of Filipinos in the RP have internet access (as of
>Dec 1999). One percent is a fairly elite crowd. The educational level, job
>experience and intelligence ("bandwidth" as JT would say) of the people here
>is above the norm in just about any environment outside a university.
Okey.
>Pull out your dictionary, and look up "aside". You see, there are no rules
>to what I write here -- I decide what to include. I will inject any asides
>I want, any illustrations I desire, and any examples I choose. The
>necessity of illustrations is demonstrated by your inability to grasp very
>elemental aspects of what I say. I include illustrations and stories to
>help you see the point. You keep missing it, unfortunately.
Okey, with that said and undisputably true, with regard to the rules,
but I could readily declare that of yourself, with regard to 'grasping'
certain concepts, and opinions? Or is it a one-way street here? And
while I find your 'illustrations' interesting, more often than not it
they do detract from the 'specifics' of the topic of debate.
>Perhaps you view this group as unbiased and filled with people who represent
>the majority of citizens in the RP? I don't think so. Read the education
>and income statistics put out by the government, the SWS and others.
Of course not. And with regard to the statistics, I think I've seen those
figures sometime back, but it wouldn't hurt to refresh what could be gleaned
from such exciting information.
>What does this have to do with toxics on Clark? Aside from the fact that
>the people who are discussing it here have no real ties to the people there,
>have no direct involvement, and have only a passing acquaintance with the
>facts gained through media sources (PP2 excepted)? It means that all of us,
>myself notably included, are participating in an intellectual exercise that
>the elite practice of solving the worlds problems from a distance. What we
>called "bull sessions" in undergrad school. And yes, I find that ironic.
>And on topic.
A bit out in left-field, yet a bit more specific, yet thanks for clarifying
just how 'bullish' it can get.
>>>> :It is a rather far leap to go from me openly lampooning my own denomination
>>>> :to saying I will joke about the tragedies in the south. I am still
>>>> :struggling with the issues there, which I why I have not posted in any of
>>>> :those threads.
>>>> Interesting ...But permit me to cite and extrapolate:
>>>>
>>>> "Should DSP change his handle because of the Moslems here? Should
>>>> people refrain from fat jokes because it is something I am sensitive
>>>> about? Should Erap's drinking and womanizing not be joked about
>>>> because some here find it less than a laughing matter? ... "
>>>> I've no problem with the 'lampooning,' or the 'joking' over matters which
>>>> involves something mundane as DSPs wonderful personality out here; I've
>>>> no problem with making fun of the Pangulo himself; etc. etc. Heck, start
>>>> attacking my manner of diction, compositional skills, or even prose in
>>>> debate - No problem there either, but what you've suggested here is (and
>>>> I could be wrong about this) is that you feel that there are no limits to
>>>> how one expresses one's opinion, or even sense-of-humor out here ...Whereas, I
>>>> offered nothing more than an "observation," which you yourself were
>>>> sensitive enough to think that I was chastising you. Wherefore, in fact,
>>>> and in the same sense offered to chat with you, on this and other matters,
>>>> thus extending an offer of taking our exchange to a 'live' forum, which of
>>>> course you declined.
>>: Yes, but what makes you believe that your "observation" has meaning to me?
>>: Who are you, and what have you said or done, for me to take your words to
>>: heart? You do not demonstrate any compelling reason for me to agree with
>>: you, you merely make "observations" about my intollerance, my insensitivity,
>>: my anti-Filipino sentiments. That strikes me as criticism.
>>Ah. I see. I'm nobody for you to 'take my words to heart,' but in the
>>-context- of our exchange, and the manner in which you pour your own
>>heart (& kin) to bear out here, one could readily ask that of yourself.
>>But that's neither here nor there, it does however demonstrate just to
>>what measures one would take in convoluting a matter as simple as whether
>>or not this case goes to trial. Be that as it may, you did indeed hyperbole
>>my simple reply where I stated:
>>
>> "I suppose one had to be there catch the humor ..."
>>
>>Di ba? And who I am in terms of this 'reply' is who you were attempting
>>to convey some concept of humor however you deem funny, and myself offering
>>nothing more sharing an observation completely with the context of SCF.
>>But that's a minor asidein and of the crux of the point of order involving
>>those seeking justicein Clark, but a tangent that I pursued and thus again
>>extrapolated the fallacy therein.
>Again, so obtuse for such an intelligent person. Read the third sentence in
>what you quote from me above. The point is that you give me no reason to
>value your observations; critical observations from strangers is called
>"criticism". You don't tell me WHY you think the things you do, and we have
>no history which allows me to understand why you say the things you do (say,
>if you were my priest, or my doctor, or my professor, or my friend whose
>judgement I have learned to value over a period of time), so how can your
>negative "observations" be taken as anything but criticism? It kinda
>follows...
Yes, sometimes for the lack of words I can't make myself any clearer than
I have. Sure. And again, I'm nobody for you to 'take my words to heart,'
yet you employ a certain amount of passion & effort in trying to convince
me, or anyone for that matter, just how 'funny' it is. And again, "I suppose
one had to be there catch the humor ..." but you see it as an opportunity
to hyperbole, or attempt to lay the foundation upon which religious contentions
could invariably be spawned from this. Nice tact, but again quite a
non-sequitur, and an detracting "aside" to the focus of this exchange.
>>: As to why I do not "chat" online, my schedule (and my inclination) do not
>>: allow it. This is not a SCF thing -- when ICQ first came along many friends
>>: around the world used it, and while I took a stab at it I never got into it.
>>: I cannot rearrange my schedule to fit in with others; NGs allow me to
>>: converse whenever and wherever I have the time. I've a a family that is the
>>: center of my universe, plus a business to run 7/365 that goes almost 24
>>: hours a day. I sneak these sessions in when time permits.
>>Well I do appreciate you at least trying. Nevertheless, the effort that
>>you've employed to this point is commendable and by the same token I can
>>relate to your responsibilities. And on the otherhand, this exercise is
>>quite stimulating to see to what lengths you'd go in re-constructing your
>>argument(s) ;-)
>And the lengths you go to misread and distort what I say. Splendid
>exercise, what?
And the frequency in the manner in which you change/convolute what you've
said, along with the non-sequiturs, and hyperboles could be invariably be
misconstrued ...Or is that the objective in and of your part of the exercise,
di ba?
>>And as for 'genetics,' I see just how (sic) profound your thinking is in this
>>matter which has nothing to do with the racial, or ethnic make up of those
>>involved in this matter in Clark - And in citation of your contention that
>>this is all about some ignorant anti-American endeavor, which of course was
>>acknowledged when you ascertained that the US was not the only defendant
>>named in the class-action suit, eh? And again, if I haven't stated this
>>enough already, this isn't about US=white RP=brown, or the pigmentation
>>of those involved ...But of a matter of principle, responsibility and
>>juris prudence.
>Sorry. Evasion. Smoke and mirrors. If you have something to say, be
>honest and say it, don't imply. Dancing around it like this trying to be
>clever merely indicates that you probably don't want to answer the question.
>Because you seek to keep your personal life personal? You just spent a
>bunch of words "hinting" at several things in a fashion designed to mislead
>that were nonetheless as personal as saying something concrete. More so,
>because I can interpret the above many ways, some which paint you as the
>scoundrel. Say it or don't say it. Don't hide behind some third-person
>narrative. But again, you don't answer questions, you just obfuscate...
WatDidJaSay? Please, stick to the 'specifics,' Bastos. The fact of the
matter here is your approach, or in this case re-proach to the debate
over Clark. You defined your contention early on that this was nothing
more than "anti-American rhetoric," yes? Must I quote you again? And
imbued in this was the suggestion of race, and recently propogated with
your coining of the term 'genetics.' Moreover, and I don't see anything
alluding to this in your impassioned meandering retort above, and it's clear
that your own 'evasiveness,' has gotten the better of you on this minor,
if not subtle point.
>>: I have to walk a fine line in this NG, being the Bastos Kano. I feel that I
>>: cannot just state my feelings like JT, or rant like Siomai. I will not take
>>: a self-flagellatory stance against the US and Americans like TJH. But I'm
>>: not blind. I live with a Filipina, have two full-blooded Filipino kids and
>>: a "Kanoy" toddler, and we always have one or more family members staying
>>: with us from the RP. We have daily communication with the family back home,
>>: and unlike several here I consider it a privelege to assist my family with
>>: their education, their medical bills, their businesses and their homes.
>>: Daily, here and in TRW, I have to face the paradox of so many Filipinos
>>: admiring and wanting what the US has and produces, and on the other hand
>>: those who criticize and condemn the US. There is a guilt that many people
>>: seem to feel -- I want the chocolate, but know it's bad for me, so I'll say
>>: I hate the chocolate, all the while hating myself for wanting the chocolate!
>>Ah, I see you are coming around. But why would you want to state your feelings
>>like JT, or even 'rant like Siomai?' etc. etc. Be yourself. Be the BASTOS
>>KANO that we've come to know and understand, and bilib it or not you're doing
>>a great job so far. Yet, you're tugging at heart-strings, Bastos imbued with
>>your postulations against having the trial held ...More importantly the
>>correlation isn't all too clear and of course, the pity-points notwithstanding.
>>
>> ;-)
>Sigh. perhaps when you grow up you'll understand. I'm tired of sitting in
>the hall of the Freshman dorm talking with you.
Oh no! Please don't go! 'Thrall me with your acumen,' and stun me with
your mundane sense of injustice and justice. Tell me more of your parables
meant to confuse, confound and to obfuscate. Share with me just how much
the Philippines means to you, and or how much it doesn't in terms of the
hardships of those who aren't as materially wealthy as ourselves.
>Get this. I don't need or want pity. I have what a whole lot of people in
>the world want. I envy no one (well, perhaps Bill Gates) and have a heck of
>a lot of fun in being just where I want to be in life. When I talk about my
>family, it is to try to give you and others a glimpse into who I am and what
>I stand for. It's one reason I am one of the very few here who uses his
>full name, reveal my true email, and even give people links to my web page
>to see my family. I use a handle so there will be no question as to who or
>what I am. Since my family is the most important thing to me, is it any
>wonder that they make their way into so many of my posts? If you think
>having a great family is a "pity-point", then I have to pity you. You hide
>behind a facade, behind euphemisms and allusions. That's your choice, but I
>would feel dishonest doing that.
Oh, come now, Bastos. We were debating Clark ...Not your family! Whom I, in
all sincerity believe, like you yourself are wonderful people. Shucks, I even
lauded you on how much you declared your respect and love for them. Heck,
I myself would consider infusing my own family experiences, if and when it
was appropriate ...But evidently, your manner in applying this to our
exchange was not ...How do I say? Timely? Given the civil, yet restrained
tone of our debate.
>I am myself, and you find fault in it because you don't understand me.
>That's your problem, not mine. I've done all I can to help you, but have to
>admit defeat. Your impenetrable preconceptions are beyond even my
>prodigious powers to crack.
No! No! No! 'Tis I who will yield to your vast knowledge and 'truth,'
in good time. Yet, the same could be said in your own opinion of me. But
that doesn't mean that it has to end on this note. Moreover, and to this
point, we have accomplished a lot in getting to the proverbial roux over
Clark - Wouldn't you say?
>>: In one sense you are right, in that I really don't care for the Philippines,
>>: per se, except as circumstances there severly affect my family living there.
>>: I have no loyalty to the RP as a country. I have no unfettered love for the
>>: the cuisine, and the beauty stirs me no more than other tropical places I
>>: have visited. I have met great people and not so great people there, just
>>: about like anywhere else in the world. I have no identification with the
>>: history of the people there, as it is not my history. Yet because my family
>>: is there, and all of the things we discuss here affect them on a daily
>>: basis, I am very much interested in conditions in the RP and what can be
>>: done to make them better. I do not want my family to have to wonder, every
>>: day, how to make one small fish feed 5. I do not want family members abused
>>: by the police, the military, or the justice system. I do not want rich
>>: plutocrats stealing everything that is needed to improve production, health
>>: and safety. It's all about family for me -- these are my people, and I
>>: cannot undue what a corrupt and uncaring government inflicts upon them. I
>>: am not Filipino, but my family is. My ties are stronger than most of the
>>: 2nd generation Pinoys I know in the States, so many of whom view the
>>: Philippines as something that has nothing to do with them, and who have no
>>: desire to ever visit. I know several who cannot locate the RP on a map. I
>>: try to learn a little Tagalog, here and there, not beuase of the beauty of
>>: the language but because I feel it shows my family I respect them when I use
>>: it (and it provides the kids lots of giggles and howls of laughter at my
>>: expense).
>>: Randy
>>Quite a stretch from your initial position against having the case tried, and
>>while I wholeheartedly comprehend each and every word you've stated and shared
>>to this point which has very little semblence to what we are trying to achieve
>>in obtaining some consensus over Clark, it's now somewhat clear where you
>>are coming from. You have no affinity for a nation (per se) where the
>>'significant half' and reasons by which you are here, your family is from,
>>and for that fact spout confrontational opinions in a newsgroup of those
>>who are of the same ethnicity, yet you justify your position via faulty
>>analogies, non-sequiturs and just about every compositional fallacy under
>>the sun, over not having the trial held at all based on your endearing
>>'love, and respect for your family?' Whow! And while I applaud and respect
>>you for that, t sounds a wee-bit convoluted doncha' think? Nevertheless,
>>it's just your opinion on this subtle issue over the "toxics," the "suffering,"
>>and the "deaths" in Clark which you presume isn't worthy of a courtroom/justice,
>>and from a perspective that is quite tangential to say the least.
>Wake up!
Ooops. Touched a nerve with that one! Gotta' remember ...Gotta' remember : )
>Show me where I say that no trial should be held and I'll hail you
>as the greatest dialogician since Socrates. Since I never said that (you
>say it how many times in every post? Know what the "big lie" is? Tell a
>lie long enough, and loud enough, and eventually people will believe it?) it
>will be hard to prove. Pull off your blinders and realize you are not
>nearly as clever as you think. Too much repetition. Too many misused
>words. Too many direct contradictions in your followups to what you've
>quoted above.
Why thank you for the critique! I'm flattered that you'd take the time
to give my argument some, but not a whole lot of thought. And again,
and I apologize for the repetition, since you hardly ever 'get it the
first, or even 2nd time around,' in your 'opposition' to the civil-trial
& proceedings is in and over this:
o " Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet
I have not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any
responses here. Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they
lived there and got sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She
looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the nature
or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
' bandwagon.' ..."
...Yes? And again, this prefaced your entry into this exchange.
>>But that doesn't mean that this exchange is by any means over ...Especially in
>>and of this quote:
>>
>>" The town next to where I live in CA has a big Chevron refinery. Every few years,
>> they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind of emissions. Instantly thousands
>> of residents go to local hospitals and stand in line for hours for "treatment" so
>> they can get in on a settlement ..."
>>
>> re: <RRlf5.60009$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
>>
>>"Every few years?" Hmm. "Discharge the wrong kind of emmissions?" Ah. Interesting,
>>given the fact that the Avon facility there in Contra Costa had two (2) accidents
>>within a calendar year involving fires ...And can one imagine what sort of "wrong kind
>>of emissions," that entailed, eh? But here is a government report on -that- matter.
>>
>> re: <http://chemsafety.gov/1999/inv/9914ica.htm>
>Wrong place. I'm talking about the Chevron refinery in Richmond. You're
>referring to Tosco. But facts never get in your way...
We were talking along the lines of toxics weren't we? We were trying to get to
'specifics' with regard to how safe it was living next to an oil refinery and
how you felt that the is hardly ever any danger of toxic poisoning in the
day-to-day operations of such facilities, and people, for the most part have
this tendency to "get in on a settlement," and directly applying it to those
who have suffered and are suffering in Clark, in justification of the faulty
position you've taken in and of this exchange, yes? Nevethless, I assumed the
town in the proximity of where you declared, "next to where you live" was
Avon, California just on the otherside of the hill from Richmond. Or was
this a disingenous fabrication as well?
>>Of course those suffering in Clark are not worthy of such an "investigation," "legal
>>recourse," nor "venue" until -ALL- the facts are in, right? Again, I'm simply alluding
>>and getting a better understanding of your non-sequitur above.
>Gee, Dom, you're right. I don't think anything should be done. Ignore
>everything that I've said to the contrary, you were able to see right
>through my superficial words to my real meaning. (FYI -- that's
>"sarcasm" -- look it up if you have any questions).
>Randy
Hehehehe ...I suppose there's a smidgen of truth in there somewhere, I 'guess' <g>
l8r Randy
soc.culture.filipino
political science, international law and ethics all stand
up simultaneously and give you a standing ovation in this
response to Bastos Kano.
You have displayed excellence and superiority in reasoning
and arguing your points and positions on various aspects of
the discussion.
Hats off. Words of wisdom just passed by.
PusongPinoye2
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Tansong Isda
> Interesting about your father. How long did he live in the Philippines?
> Were you born there? Nothing to do with this discussion, I'm just
> intrigued. Did he retire there after service?
After WW2, he just stayed. He had a live-in girlfriend <she abandoned him with
two girls> went to school and became an artist, met my mother and they married,
I was born two years later (1953). I don't know what type of connection he has
with the service (I know that he was w/Army corps of engineers) but he didn't
retire, but he also didn't get any money from them except when he died.
> Still completely in the dark about your reference to my fear of being
> excluded from anything. Now you say that I have a fear of being excluded
> from the country -- are you saying that I have a fear that I won't be
> allowed into the RP?
This fear of getting this "Anti-American" that you have used as if whatever(I am
trying to identify...) fear is being awakened in you. You know this fear better
than I would, because I don't have this fear, I don't understand how a lawsuit
filed can be an anti-American "statement?".
Bastos Kano
entire messages, then comment (rarely respond) to a bit here or there, so
I'll snip most of the verbage.
> >Websters Online defines it as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a :
> >unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious
> >matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or
professional
> >rights : BIGOTED
>
> Also applicable to this 'term' is "excitability," "insolence,"
"misjudgment,"
> and "dissent," all of which are just as applicable. And why you infer
> this along superficially charged racial-lines is beyond me, yet, let's
> look at your quote again - There is no mistaking in just how 'narrow'
> it is, and which defined/prefaced your entry into this exchange (ie.
> "assuming deaths").
Of course, I defer to your definition. Ignore the Cambridge dictionary
("disapproving of or refusing to accept ideas or ways of behaving that are
different from your own"). Or the Newbury House Online Dictionary ("1 [U]
lack of kindness or understanding toward people who are different, (syns.)
bigotry, prejudice. 2 [C;U] physical sensitivity to s.t., such as food").
Perhaps that is one reason we can't seem to connect -- you have your own
definition of words like "intolerance", "non-sequitur", "fallacy", etc.
The inference along racial lines is the dictionary's, not mine. I simply
cut and pasted. You -assumed- and sought to see some racial connection, as
you seek every possible negative misunderstanding of what I said.
*Non-sequitur alert* I had a stepmother who had such a twisted and warped
mind that everything people she didn't like said to her was interpreted
negatively. I was burned many times, then started searching my brain for
any way she could convolute things before I said them, to avoid saying
things that could be turned against me. One morning, when I was visiting my
Dad, I went through the mental exercise and decided it was safe to say
something pleasant. I said, "You look really nice today!" She said, "So,
you're saying I normally don't look good?"
You have the maddening ability to twist things into unrecognizable shapes to
fit in with your opinions and preconceptions. You keep harkening back to
the first things I said in this thread, even where I have stated that I
either have changed my position on this, did not intend it as it came out,
or have clarified it in some other manner. I ask questions, which are later
answered, but you still dredge up, "But you asked these questions
initially..." It's like I said "I hate being in Florida" in a post, then
later clarify it when someone asks to mean that being there means I can't be
with my family, yet you keep going back to "But you said you hate Florida!"
> 'Specifically' speaking and in the context of your quote above, are you
> now waffling by suggesting that you weren't being pretty much 'intolerant'
> when you presumed that this was nothing more than some 'witch hunt' by
> 'anti-American rhetoric?' It's a knee-jerk alright, and to what extent
> is reasonably clear.
Here is what I said (and you quoteback *yet again* without reading) about
"witch hunt":
>> Is this another witch hunt, "She
>> looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
>> this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the
nature
>> or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
>> Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
>> ' bandwagon.' ..."
Did I SAY it was a "witch hunt"? No. I asked the question "Is this...?"
Did you learn what a "rhetorical question" was in school? Rhetorical
questions, which are defined by their context to the astute reader, are not
meant to be answered. They are designed to engage the thinking process of
the reader. So many of the "fallacies" you seem to see are simply your
failure to understand, because you do not wish to. If I had said, "This is
a witch hunt", then your criticim would be valid. I did not say so, so your
observation is inaccurate and out of line.
> >Is in intolerant to ask that *some* consideration be given, if only lip
> >service, to the incredible physical resources the bases left behind?
> >Nowhere have I seen ANYONE critical of the US here admit that these bases
> >provide a great economic opportunity and infrastructure in areas that are
> >not nearly as soundly built. The people I have talked with in the
> >Philippines recognize how important a resource they are, but I guess to
> >admit the obvious appears to undermine the position that some take that
NO
> >good came out of the US military in the RP (actually, I know several
people
> >in this NG who might be considered good that came out of US bases...).
>
> Your verbose meandering does not, in anyway detract from what was conveyed
> in your "witch hunt" declaration, which to this point was construed as
> 'intolerant,' and call it what you will per Webster, and whatever one
> deems as a definition it is without doubt pretty concise.
Dom's Definition: Any discussion or explanation that you do not understand,
which rebuts successfully one of your claims, or which you do not wish to
respond to is labeled "verbose meandering." I don't accept that definition.
> >Again, your perspective has you reading my words incorrectly. Point out
> >where I say there is -no- possibility that the problems were the result
of
> >toxic poisoning? I haven't ever written that. I have said that one
cannot
> >assume that, that there does not appear to be (in the sources cited)
> >incontrovertable evidence of a link. I also say that there probably is
one.
> >How is that saying there is -no- possibility? You read the following:
>
> In terms of -no- possibility, your perceived opposition to having this
trial
> held, for whatever 'causal relationship' you deem is required, surely
suggests
> it - Which to this point is nothing more than a rebut to your own
"assumptions."
Ah, you are starting to weasel. I am getting through to you! "Percieved
opposition", now. The only opposition I have is to a civil suit in this
matter that is being taken up by governments and is beyond, IMO, the pervue
of a civil actions of indivuals against a government.
> I'm heartened to see (can I use that term?) that you are coming around
> ...Heheheh, "not that I ever thought there wasn't." Think about it,
> you were having an exchange with me, not with the "anti-US perspectives"
> out here. But I suppose that is where we draw the line huh? All the
> meandering non-sequiturs, fallacies, etc. etc. Heck, and I recall you
> declaring that objectivity doesn't exist out here : )
Do you have "non-sequitur" on a hotkey? Is this your word for the week, to
use as many times as you can so it becomes part of your vocabulary?
Dom's Definitions: Any response which takes pains to discuss a point and
bring in illustrations is a "non-sequitur".
When I say, "I find this position ironic coming from...", I am expressing an
opinion about my sense of irony at seeming contradictory standards being
accepted. And yes, I was specific in my "witch hunt" quip. I was
"postulating" that, given what I had read to that point, I hadn't seen a
clear demonstration of a linkage -- not that a linkage didn't exist, but I
hadn't seen it. I have experience with people who got involved in liability
suits who were not really affected but claimed they were to take advantage
of an anticipated cash settlement. I have also seen situations blamed on a
factor which was not, indeed the cause. As you get older, you will learn
that the world is not all black and white, and that what may seem obvious to
you from your perspective may not be what occurred at all. The term "witch
hunt" refers to citing causes that were not, indeed, real. A dispassionate
investigator has to enter any investigation with an open mind that allows
that all is perhaps not as it first seems.
> Interesting tact, Bastos : ) Are you now critiquing my compositional
prose
> and style of debate? Hahahahaa ...No need to nit-pick over my usage of
> words, and your perceived opinion of my demeanor in this exchange. Yet,
> let's get to the 'specifics' shall we? More importantly, let's not
> "detract" from the point-of-order here, which I'm sure you are subtly
> attempting to do. Nevertheless, we'll get to the 'connection' in good
> time. Now please bring your seat to an upright position, secure the
> tray/table in front of you, relax and enjoy : )
I hardly think criticizing your misuse of pejorative words to falsely
characterise what I say is "nit-picking". You never get around to saying
what my "fallacies" are. Your diatribes are against my opinions and the way
I express myself, which are not by definition, fallacies. Your assertion
that I was talking about the Tosco refinery when I was clearly talking about
the Chevron refinery IS a fallacy. We are generally not arguing about
issues of fact here -- whether there was contamination, whether the people
were exposed to said contamination at levels to cause injury, etc. Those
facts, the misrepresentation of which could be labeled "fallacy", have not
been the focus of our "discussions". The bulk of our (oh, so time
consuming) discussions are your misrepresentation that I am claiming the USG
had no responsibility, that there should not be a hearing, that I am
insensitive and intolerant, etc. Even if you were correct in your
misunderstanding of what I said, these are not fallacies. You simply apply
the word to anything you disagree with, which is not accurate usage.
> >Show me ONCE where I have said it should not be adjudicated! Yes, I
believe
> >that a civil suit is the wrong venue -- for one thing, such a suit
requires
> >a tremendous amount of resources, which I doubt are available. I have
> >maintained that this is a governmental matter, possibly an
extragovernmental
> >matter for an organization like the WHO. It is a matter for the
honorable
> >politicians of the RPG and USG to work out, and they seem to be working
> >toward it. The governmental process may or may not take as long as a
civil
> >process, but the civil process if rife with uncertainties, beginning with
> >jurisdiction and venue. Now, twist this -- this should not be a matter
of a
> >civil suit but of negotiations between nations, since it involves tricky
> >multinational agreements and decisions. I am NOT saying the mess should
not
> >be cleaned up, and I am NOT saying people should not be compensated. Get
> >it?
>
> Well, why didn't you say that in the first place without having to suggest
> that this was nothing more than 'anti-American rhetoric?' Hmmm.
Because I percieved that several people had already tried the USG and found
them guilty simply because it was the USG involved, and there are two sides
to every story. I get tired of those who have nothing good to say about the
US, especially while living here, or who blame continuing problems in the RP
on the US. If Filipinos can be forgiven for having pride in their country,
with all of it's problems, and defend it against non-Filipinos, then I
should be allowed to express another take on this issue. If calling for a
hesitation in the rush to judgement is criminal, I plead guilty.
> You've
> come a long way in defining your position on this, Bastos and I was
confident
> and objectively certain that some semblence of rationality could be drawn
> from an exchange with you.
Not so much that, as we went beyond my initial reason for posting, which was
to point out that there might be more to the issue that what exists on the
face of a few press articles. A lot of interesting information has come out
here since my initial posts -- information that neither you nor I knew --
from both the Filipino perspective and the US military's. I'm still not
clear on what exactly transpired in the negotiations before Clark was
abandoned; while I have always depended upon PusongPinoye2 in the past for
insider insights and great references, his nationalism has really come to
the fore lately in several threads (more so than I recall in the prior 8
months I have been here). The statements of some military types who were
there (both here and via email) paint a different picture (although not
necesarily a mutually exclusive one). PP2's nationalism does not mean that
what he says is not bang-on, but I am more cautious now in how I accept his
conclusions. I will never know exactly how much fault lies with the USG,
how much with the RPG, and how much any others involved (i.e., private
contractors involved in changing over the bases to civilian use).
> But let's delve a little more into your objection
> to a civil suit. I believe it's been nearly a decade since the USAF
abandoned
> the base there in Clark, now wouldn't you think that some sort action
would've
> been taken during the interim? What I mean to say here is that it took a
> grass-roots, non-government and independent effort to bring this "problem"
into
> the 'proverbial light.' And now that it has, this effort to illuminate
this
> "problem" one would want to exclude those who for the most part have the
pertinent
> information, data ...And facts? Moreover, to leave the ultimate decision
as to
> 'what to do' about this "problem" to those who ignored it in the first
place?
You may be right, but that is something neither of us is likely to ever find
out for sure. I get the feeling that this issue has been simmering for a
long time before the suit, and I don't get the feeling that it has had that
significant impact on the governmental process chugging slowly along. I am
more inclined to give credit to the health organizations, Filipino
politicians in the US and the RP, and the various church denominations who
have raised this issue before the US President and Congress.
> Interesting ...Why do you think this class-action (civil) suit exists?
Think
> 'bout that please. And why not a 'civil process,' since one believes that
> the negligence in and over this by gov't was not 'criminal?'
Are you stating that I have said this is not criminal? I'd like you to
quote that one back to me. I think there may be a bunch of criminal charges
that could be filed at a variety of levels; those charges would probably
have to be brought against citizens by their own governments. I'm sure that
US laws (or uniform military code) were broken, and there are probably some
criminal charges in how the situation of the lahar refugees were handled by
the RP government or civilian contractors (whoever has had responsibility
for the CAPCOM facility).
> >And understand that when I say that the US should pay when they are
> >compensated for "tenant improvements" that is irony, too. I know darn
well
> >that no one will ever compensate the USG for the bases. And I have also
> >stated that I believe the US should pay. Those structures and
> >infrastructures are a form of aid. Too bad no one had the decency to say
> >even a qualified "Thank you."
>
> No sir, you waffled when you were painfully corrected in and of this
thingy
> over 'tenant improvements,' come non-sequitur.
Referring to JT's response? I simply didn't bother responding. I have been
dealing with real estate for some 25 years, and have always gotten
compensation for improvements. I would never improve another person's
property without consideration. I just signed a 7 year lease on a new
warehouse today where I got 3 months free rent for a few simple improvements
I need to make.
Bottom line for me is that the bases represent a gold mine if used properly.
To pretend that they are not an asset is disingenuous.
> Oh no, Bastos. It's not so much the "Japanese" aspect of your
non-sequitur,
> but the suggestion that the Philippines is morally corrupt eg. 'by
allowing
> graves to be erected' - And please re-consider your thoughts on this:
>
> "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
> transaction, too."
>
> Yes, there are some phrases here that require a wee-bit of attention
> such as, '...Coming from a country' and '...money involved in that
> transaction too' are indeed compelling, doncha think? And your
> inference was? You are too easy, Bastos : )
1. Did the RP allow these grave markers or monuments to be erected, or did
the Japanese do it without any form of governmental permission? The fact is
that the RP allowed these markers to be placed. Yes?
2. Money was involved. Money to buy the land, to get approval, to lobby
local and national politicians. Yes?
My inference was, as stated above, that I consider it ironic that there is
such animosity directed against the US for the Clark toxics and any human
suffering related to this, yet time has allowed the horrors of Japanese
occupation (which I'm sure you will agree were of an order of magnitude
greater -- something like 15-18,000 US and Pinoy soldiers, plus "collateral
civilians", died in the Bataan death march alone) to be diminished to a
point where some honor can be granted to these invading soldiers.
>
> Perhaps 'contempt' was the wrong word ...Perhaps 'indiscriminate,' and or
> 'disrespectful,' would be more appropriate. And while I laud you for your
> pursuit(s) in & of certain religo-philisophical endeavors, why prod those
> who are more intimate with their faith? You know as well as I do how
> predominantly Christian/Catholic the Philippines is. You come into this
> thread, with the banner of slighting religion (your religion) in sharing
> your story about impersonating a priest and taking tithings ...Heheheh,
> and again, I suppose one had to be there to see the humor, and that's what
> I imparted, yes? But no, the non-sequitur and length of this aspect of
our
> exchange is now where it is - Nowhere. But look around, threads involving
> religion will pop up now and then on SCF, but hardly in the context of
> "Toxics In Clark."
Yes, it was off topic -- I had no idea that this would drag on. It was, in
part, my attempt to set aside any acrimony regarding the Clark topic (which
I thought had been taken about as far as it could go here... little did I
know!). Perhaps you are being unintentionally insulting with your statement
that others here are more "intimate" with their faith than I am; perhaps you
meant to say "are more sensitive to jokes being made about their faith".
Show me any lengthy thread here that doesn't evolve into something entirely
different. That's the nature of online communication. Tangents are taken.
>
> >To some degree, I am responsible for the impression I leave behind. But
if
> >someone steadfastly refuses to accept either further explanations of my
> >intent (it's called "communications") or even acknowledge when I state
that
> >my position has changed, that person holds sole responsibility for any
> >aftertaste. I cannot help you there.
>
> As negligent as it was, I'm pretty certain of that : )
Again, as negligent as WHAT was? Talk about non-sequiturs! You need to
make some referent to what you are talking about for it to make sense. You
had one post to me where you made specific statements; since then, you
simply don't respond to what I write. I find that frustrating. It's hard
to rebut someone who doesn't say anything but "you write meandering
fallacies."
> You made it pretty clear in this recent reply your position on this. Yet,
> I'm still wondering why the slough confrontational non-sequiturs and the
> manner in which you introduced yourself into this thread. Which of
course,
> was pretty plain to see. Trolling? Perhaps.
I don't troll. That's for teens and folks who like to agitate in a venue
where they are safe to act in ways they never would in TRW. I had actually
never heard the term before coming to this NG, because my time has been
spent in moderated forums in the past where such things didn't occur.
If I wanted to stir people up, there are many things I could say here that
would set the flames flying (all I would need do is repeat what my wife says
about Filipinos and the Philippines -- the things that many Filipinos here
say, but coming from a Kano they would be trolling). I know the buttons and
insults that would set people off here. I try to avoid these things (for
example, even though I'd rather not type as many characters you will never
see me write the four-letter "F" word referring to Filipinos). I know that
I am an outsider, a guest as it were, and I try to mind my manners. I find
it interesting that someone like you can get so much anti-Filipino mileage
out of innocent things I say. Of course, you translate them into
sensational midrashes like "morally bankrupt", but still -- I am a pussycat
when it comes to criticism of the RP.
I introduced myself into this thread bringing up that the resources the US
left behind in the bases never get acknowledged in discussions of what the
US did or did not do when they left, or why and how they left. I still
think this is a pertinent issue. So far, no one has denied that the bases
represent a nice asset for the Philippines, but I have yet to see any
Filipino acknowledge their worth. As I stated initially, this surprises me
somewhat because many of the people I talked with in 1995 and 1996 there had
great hopes for economic renewal and true community economic growth (of an
acceptable kind, rather than the usual "commerce" that grows up around
military bases) involving the base infrastructures.
> I see where the pontification comes from ...Inclusive of the meandering,
> fallacies and non-sequiturs ;-)
Now who is not being "intimate" with their spirituality? Good preachers
don't meander, or fill their sermons with fallacies or non-sequiturs. You
must have a very low opinion of theology and the priesthood to even say such
in jest and risk offending all of the Catholics and Protestants here who
would not want their priests so slandered. See how easy it is to take an
innocent remark and turn it on it's ear?
Sorry for the long quoteback, but it is necessary to answer your question.
The "but not" is from a sentence that is an illustration, not a statement of
position, and has no relevance to my stated position on this. You are
quoting completely out of context -- your "may not" and "but not" are not on
the same playing field. The "but not" is from a true sentence -- that
everyone who has ever lived has died, but obviously not every death is
grounds for a suit. That statement is undeniably true (unless someone has
managed to discover immortality). The "may not" is from my actual position
statement. The illustration is to demonstrate the reasonable doubt that a
jurist supposedly brings into a deliberation; not all things that appear
connected are.
If a man drops dead of a heart attack in a garbage dump, does it follow that
something in the garbage dump killed him? My point has always been that
unless a causal chain can be demonstrated, there may be some coincidence
involved or other explanations. This is a theoretical position that any
juror is supposed to take. Don't try to take my position that someone is
innocent until proven guilty as a denial of their guilt.
Let me be specific: You have a bunch of people get sick. You have some
birth defects. You discover contamination around where they live. This
contamination has in the past caused the medical conditions observed. Does
this prove a causal relationship? No. What if you looked at the population
surrounding the base that no one is claiming is exposed to the same
contaminants, and you find the same kinds of illnesses in about the same
percentages within the population? What would that indicate? It might
indicate that the exposure to contaminants is much greater than previously
thought, or it might mean that there were other factors (genetic, dietary,
environmental) which accounted for the illnesses. Or, more likely, you find
that the incidence in the contaminated area is 500 times that of the
surrounding population. What would that indicate? You cannot take a
circumscribed view of the CAPCOM population without viewing their physical
symptoms in light of the population they came from.
You view my position that this case is not open and shut as a "fallacy".
That is your *opinion*, which you are more than welcome to hold. I can only
guess from what you've written why you feel it fallacious to believe that
press reports have not demonstrated both causation and guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt (or even by preponderance of evidence). I still believe
there is much more to this than any of us know, not in some diabolical
conspiracy sense but just in the motivations and intent of the diverse
parties, behind-the-scenes negotiating, and military, political and civilian
careers involved.
> "Huge sections?" they were key quotes that you just as soon dismiss
> ..."Broad generalization(s)?" Hehehe ...You'd be the one to know of
> them. C'mon, Bastos don't give up on me now. Think about the 'broad
> generalization' in your parable(s) involving your kin. A wee-bit detached
> from the 'specifics' of the case involving Clark, doncha think? And
> on 'absurdity,' yes there comes a point in any exchange that a certain
> critical mass (for use of a better term) is attained - But to what extent
> has yet to be determined regardless of the length and means it is
achieved.
But when you quote huge sections you do not refer to the points mentioned
therein, but say things like "meandering fallacies" and such. I guess you
feel that your quotebacks and labels make it all self-evident, but it isn't.
There should be a reason for quotes, and you should use them to reference
your points in a specific manner. You take a quote like "determine whether
there is any indication" and say what I'm saying is "there is no
indication". It's obvious from context that that is NOT what I said or
meant. So long as you keep stating that I am saying things which I am not,
you make it impossible to discuss it with you. What if in every post I kept
reiterating, "Well you hate the Catholic Church and feel all priests are
liars"? Would discussing that get us anywhere? You would spend time
rebutting an obvious distortion of what you said. Then in the next post I
say "There you go again with your lies and obfuscation designed to hide the
fact that what you said was that you hate the Catholic Church and all
priests are liars." Pretty frustrating, eh? That's how I feel this
exchange is going. I am defending myself against things I did not say, time
and again. And every demonstration of your distortions gets responded to
with "Just more non-sequiturs and meandering verbiage."
Please define what you mean by "fallacy", as you use it so often, and under
different contexts.
By "your assertion", I gather you are referring to the question of where the
USG/RPG was when complaints first arose. I responded that as I understood
it the RPG tried to move people out of harm's way; some moved, some didn't.
THAT'S where the RPG was. The USG was in the States, as they had been asked
to leave/left voluntarily; I am unclear if talks were under way at this
stage about dealing with the toxics problems, but one might assume they were
because the issue had been part of the negotiations apparently before the US
military withdrew. The REAL question is whether more could be done, and the
obvious answer is yes, by all parties. Where is the "fallacy" in saying the
RPG tried to move people? Did they not try to do so? Then my statement
that they did is a fallacy. Otherwise, no cigar. Where am I shifting the
blame? I acknowledge that the USG and RPG knew of the problem before the US
left, and the RPG knew of the complaints because they sought to move people.
You acknowledge that the victims are partly to blame. There is enough blame
to go around, and I have never said any one party is blameless or even gone
to the point of declaring who should shoulder the most blame (I would have
to have knowledge I lack to put the majority of blame on the US; some have
claimed authoritatively here that offers to clean up were made by the USG
and rejected by the RPG, and others have claimed no less authoritatively
that that is not how it happened). To me, this is not about "blame", but
about fixing the situation in a way that is fair to all.
> >Pull out your dictionary, and look up "aside". You see, there are no
rules
> >to what I write here -- I decide what to include. I will inject any
asides
> >I want, any illustrations I desire, and any examples I choose. The
> >necessity of illustrations is demonstrated by your inability to grasp
very
> >elemental aspects of what I say. I include illustrations and stories to
> >help you see the point. You keep missing it, unfortunately.
>
> Okey, with that said and undisputably true, with regard to the rules,
> but I could readily declare that of yourself, with regard to 'grasping'
> certain concepts, and opinions? Or is it a one-way street here? And
> while I find your 'illustrations' interesting, more often than not it
> they do detract from the 'specifics' of the topic of debate.
Since you fail to grasp my words in either discourse or illustration, I
imagine they do detract. But what we are having is not a debate, but rather
my making statements and you saying that what I say is fallacious,
meandering, off-topic or a non-sequitur. Little meat in what you write; I
find myself endlessly correcting your possibly deliberate misunderstandings
of my statements, only to have these same things pop up in the next post, so
I try another tact to get through to you.
What concepts do I fail to grasp? Be specific, so I may agree or disagree.
You see, saying things like I keep missing it "with regard to 'grasping'
certain concepts, and opinions". WHAT concepts and opinions? Why leave it
to me to guess what you are referring to? "I am thinking of something
blue..."
> Yes, sometimes for the lack of words I can't make myself any clearer than
> I have. Sure. And again, I'm nobody for you to 'take my words to heart,'
> yet you employ a certain amount of passion & effort in trying to convince
> me, or anyone for that matter, just how 'funny' it is. And again, "I
suppose
> one had to be there catch the humor ..." but you see it as an opportunity
> to hyperbole, or attempt to lay the foundation upon which religious
contentions
> could invariably be spawned from this. Nice tact, but again quite a
> non-sequitur, and an detracting "aside" to the focus of this exchange.
You know why? Because I want you to understand me, and you obviously don't.
I don't mind being criticized or disliked for what I believe in (Giants
Rule, Dodgers Suck!), but it bothers me to have someone distort what I say.
If I believed some of the things you think I do, *I* wouldn't think very
highly of myself. It's not a comfortable feeling being accused of something
you are not guilty of. Lord knows I am guilty of enough that is dispicable
without having bogus crimes set at my door.
> >And the lengths you go to misread and distort what I say. Splendid
> >exercise, what?
>
> And the frequency in the manner in which you change/convolute what you've
> said, along with the non-sequiturs, and hyperboles could be invariably be
> misconstrued ...Or is that the objective in and of your part of the
exercise,
> di ba?
You want me to illustrate the places you have changed in our discussion?
Change means you are alive and learning. Life isn't about winning or losing
for me, it's about getting what I want for my family and me without taking
away the quality of life of others. I don't need to win arguments, and
there is nothing wrong in admitting I was wrong or I have learned. I have
done that numerous places in our discussion, and darned if I'm still here in
spite of the loss of face. Just as when you concede a point it does not
diminish you in my eyes. My wife's pride is so fierce that even when it is
evident to both of us she was wrong, she won't say so in words because she
feels that to admit that will make me see her as less than I saw before. In
7 years she has gotten to a point where she says it nonverbally, but she
still doesn't buy it at gut level when I say the refusal to admit you are
wrong makes you smaller in the eyes of others who know better, not the other
way around.
> >Sorry. Evasion. Smoke and mirrors. If you have something to say, be
> >honest and say it, don't imply. Dancing around it like this trying to be
> >clever merely indicates that you probably don't want to answer the
question.
> >Because you seek to keep your personal life personal? You just spent a
> >bunch of words "hinting" at several things in a fashion designed to
mislead
> >that were nonetheless as personal as saying something concrete. More so,
> >because I can interpret the above many ways, some which paint you as the
> >scoundrel. Say it or don't say it. Don't hide behind some third-person
> >narrative. But again, you don't answer questions, you just obfuscate...
>
> WatDidJaSay? Please, stick to the 'specifics,' Bastos. The fact of the
> matter here is your approach, or in this case re-proach to the debate
> over Clark. You defined your contention early on that this was nothing
> more than "anti-American rhetoric," yes? Must I quote you again? And
> imbued in this was the suggestion of race, and recently propogated with
> your coining of the term 'genetics.' Moreover, and I don't see anything
> alluding to this in your impassioned meandering retort above, and it's
clear
> that your own 'evasiveness,' has gotten the better of you on this minor,
> if not subtle point.
You go to lengths to establish how "close" you are in spirit to those at
Clark without explaining specifics. From your discussion I take it you
father served in Viet Nam and was exposed to Agent Orange. Why not just say
so? Why go through all the third-person rigamarole?
Show me where I *EVER* said this was "nothing more than anti-American
rhetoric". Didn't say it. This is a perfect example of how you extrapolate
on what you think I *really* mean from what I said, and that's something
you're not qualified to do (my paranoid stepmother once called me an ass; I
told her I was, but that she didn't know me well enough to know that). I
did say that I felt anti-American sentiments were biasing people into a
non-critical acceptance of the direct connections between toxics on US bases
and disease and death of people living there. I still do. Just as former
US military are more ready to defend the side of the USG. I don't fall into
either camp.
Show me where I suggest that race and genetics have anything to do with the
situation. Show me where I say anything about race or genetics (I do
mention genetics as one possible cause of problems that might be mistaken
for contamination, but that is a hypothetical offered in the same sense that
genetics is involved with a given person's liklihood of developing certain
diseases such as diabetes or breast cancer that run in the family). I try
to be very careful in what I write to never say "Filipinos are..." because I
don't believe they are as such. People who live in certain areas will have
certain similarities, and first generation US immigrants will share certain
characteristics that their offspring lack, but those things are cultural,
not genetic. To say that I have ever implied or stated that race and
genetics are a factor in this situation is a complete falsehood and betrays
your perspective -- if he is critical, it must be because it's Filipinos
he's talking about. If you knew me, you would know that I put very little
emphasis on race and a great deal of emphasis on culture as determiners of
behavior. I am definitely in the "nurture" side of the nature/nurture
debate.
> Oh no! Please don't go! 'Thrall me with your acumen,' and stun me with
> your mundane sense of injustice and justice. Tell me more of your
parables
> meant to confuse, confound and to obfuscate. Share with me just how much
> the Philippines means to you, and or how much it doesn't in terms of the
> hardships of those who aren't as materially wealthy as ourselves.
Mundane sense of justice? Oh, I see -- that I believe that someone is
innocent until proven guilty, that people and governments should not be
tried in the press, that plaintiffs in a lawsuit are not necesarilly the
most unimpeachable source on what is really going on, that facts are needed
to back claims. Guess I am mundane. Just hope you get me on a jury if you
are ever wrongly charged with a crime.
You see, your whole attitude toward me is revealed in this little paragraph.
You feel I am mundane in my sense of justice (as opposed to ... whimsical?
Exotic?). You have determined that my parables are intended to confuse,
confound and obfuscate, rather than illustrate. Perhaps -- here's an
epiphany -- you find them so confusing because you will not let go of your
misconceptions of what I say, and thus they seem to run counter to what you
believe I mean. That would be confusing. I say, "This leaf is green, just
like that bush over there." You say, "Why is he pointing to a green bush
when I know what he really just said was the leaf was yellow?"
> Oh, come now, Bastos. We were debating Clark ...Not your family! Whom I,
in
> all sincerity believe, like you yourself are wonderful people. Shucks, I
even
> lauded you on how much you declared your respect and love for them. Heck,
> I myself would consider infusing my own family experiences, if and when it
> was appropriate ...But evidently, your manner in applying this to our
> exchange was not ...How do I say? Timely? Given the civil, yet
restrained
> tone of our debate.
Yet you are not the person to decide that. Once again your youthful
arrogance shines through. Who are you, in this debate, this ng, this life,
to tell me when it is appropriate to relate stories about my life? Can't
you see how presumptuous that is?
> >I am myself, and you find fault in it because you don't understand me.
> >That's your problem, not mine. I've done all I can to help you, but have
to
> >admit defeat. Your impenetrable preconceptions are beyond even my
> >prodigious powers to crack.
>
> No! No! No! 'Tis I who will yield to your vast knowledge and 'truth,'
> in good time. Yet, the same could be said in your own opinion of me. But
> that doesn't mean that it has to end on this note. Moreover, and to this
> point, we have accomplished a lot in getting to the proverbial roux over
> Clark - Wouldn't you say?
Not really. PusongPinoye2 in related posts has done much more to shed light
on the situation.
Hunh? What touched what nerve? You simply repeat all of your distortions
of what I have said. I figure you must be dreaming. I have no idea what
you think my "nerve" is here. Connie Chung was on Letterman the other
night -- apparently they had a tiff years ago, and Letterman said what he
thought he'd said that made her mad. Connie said that wasn't it, and
wouldn't tell him. Letterman said, "But I really don't know... all these
years I thought it was this other thing." Connie kept repeating ,"You
know," and Dave kept saying ,"No, I truly don't." I feel like Letterman --
you assume I know what you are referring to, and I don't have a clue because
you are never specific.
Yep. And since then I have gotten the information to answer those
questions. So what's your point? You love to quote this (how many times
each post) when it's old news. You gave me a number of links, others more,
and some I discovered on my own. You apparently think that asking questions
is something wrong; perhaps if you learned to ask questions you would learn
more rapidly, too. I also asked what the exact nature of the contamination
was, and got answers to that, too. Is that a crime, to ask questions? I
explicitly said "I don't want to trivialize this" -- do you understand what
that means? It means that people have died or gotten sick, that there are
serious issues here, but some skepticism may be in order and I have some
concerns that go beyond the surface of the issue. If one considers this an
educational forum, not just a place to spout your particular brand of
prejudice, philosophy or nationalism, then questions should be encouraged
and answered if one has credible knowledge.
Let me show you what a fallacy is.
1. I clearly state that the refinery is Chevron in my first post. You try
to score points by researching the wrong refinery -- the Tosco refinery in
Martinez. I said Richmond and Chevron, you try to trump me with Tosco and
Avon. You were 100% wrong. You didn't read what I wrote, but jumped to a
conclusion based upon knowledge of current events in the Bay Area, where I
assume you live. Tosco gets the headlines, so no matter what I wrote you
have to assume I meant Tosco. This is typical of your comprehension.
2. You state that I say "you felt that the (sic - this is the proper use of
sic - ed) is hardly ever any danger of toxic poisoning in the day-to-day
operations of such facilities." Where in the following do you get that:
"Every few years, they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind of
emissions. Instantly thousands of residents go to local hospitals and stand
in line for hours for "treatment" so they can get in on a settlement ...
I never say there is "hardly ever any danger", do I? I am discussing the
behavior of people and lawyers, who make claims even if EPA monitoring shows
no harmful particulate matter. I was not discussing the real toxic
emissions and recent fire in the cracking plant. I am not discussing plant
safety. I was simply pointing out that sometimes people take advantage of a
situation. perhaps you have never encountered that in your life.
3. You state that I take the above example of human nature and "directly
applying it to those who have suffered and are suffering in Clark, in
justification of the faulty position you've taken in and of this exchange,
yes?" Not at all. I use it as an example that everyone who gets involved
in a suit may not be an injured party. Contrary to your race and genetics
bias stated above, I am contending that people of different races and
ethnicity can act selfishly and a bit dishonestly when it comes to suing
deep pockets. You can't have me both a racist against Filipinos and then
saying they are just like the Hispanics, blacks and whites in Richmond, can
you?
You also conveniently overlook the next, and concluding paragraph:
"Let's get some facts on the table, and not just assume the extent of the
problem because it a) involves the frightening buzz words "toxic waste" and
b) has people suing."
I guess you object to discussion of facts and exploring the extent of the
problem. I guess you object to someone not wanting to assume too much in a
complicated situation.
4. You cannot even admit to error when it is incontrovertable. Instead, you
try to turn it into another fabrication on my part:
"Nevethless, I assumed the town in the proximity of where you declared,
"next to where you live" was Avon, California just on the otherside of the
hill from Richmond. Or was this a disingenous fabrication as well?"
Firstly, for those who don't know Bay Area geography, Avon is not "just over
the hill". The cities of El Sobrante, Pinole, Hercules, Rodeo, Crockett,
and Martnez (the county seat) lie between Richmond and Avon, a distance of
over 25 miles by car.
Secondly, I live in El Cerrito, which is the city next to Richmond. Indeed,
my house is on the city line -- next door is Richmond.
Thirdly, I said the refinery was Chevron, which you had to ignore because it
didn't fit with what you wanted to believe to "show me up".
Finally, why not admit you made a mistake? Why try to turn it into me lying
when you are the one who blew it?
Your entire analytical method is laid bare, with all of your arrogance,
distortions, misunderstandings and preconceptions visible in one little
exchange.
Randy
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:16:46 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>It gets harder than normal following your posts when you quote in full
>entire messages, then comment (rarely respond) to a bit here or there, so
>I'll snip most of the verbage.
I, OTOH shall execute this 'lil Anti-Non-Sequitur-Troll-Busting-script.sh(tm)
and return chain-of-events ...Err, context to it's rightful format and place,
so nothing is missed, omitted nor misconstrued. Waddayasay? ;-)
// begin
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:39:00 GMT, Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina <n...@cat5global.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 01:15:03 PDT Bastos Kano <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:10:36 GMT, Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina <n...@cat5global.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:54:55 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>message news:Aplh5.401433$MB.63...@news6.giganews.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:20:19 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>> :Let's see -- because I offend your religious sensibilities, I am
>>>>>> :intollerant. Not a whole lot of sense in that.
>>>>>> Pls. read my followup again, and where did I suggest that you 'offended
>>>>>> my religious sensibilities?' I merely stated that 'one had to be there
>>>>>> to catch the humor,' in and of whatever it was that you thought was punny.
>>>>>> Heck, and if I were there, perhaps I would of thought of it as ROFL
>>>>>> hilarious.
>>>>: I got that from your admonishment against religious humor, your claiming I
>>>>: am intollerant (I can see that you just HATE intollerant people! an old Tom
>>>>: Lehrer line), and saying that I should be careful what I post here.
>>>>Awww. Again, please don't get hung up on the semantics, Bastos ...Heheheh,
>>>>do look up the term 'intolerant,' and consider this tid-bit, in and of this
>>>>context, 'kay?
>>>>o " Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet
>>>> I have not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any
>>>> responses here. Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they
>>>> lived there and got sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She
>>>> looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
>>>> this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the nature
>>>> or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
>>>> Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
>>>> ' bandwagon.' ..."
>>>>
>>>>re: <http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=650658770.1&mhitnum=9&CONTEXT=965136707.663617548>
>>>>
>>>>See the "intolerance" here? : ) Oh, but what of this erudite resolution
>>>>to this matter?
>>>>
>>>>o "You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up
>>>> any toxic contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP
>>>> compensates the US for the 'tenant improvements' ..."
>>>>
>>>> re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
>>>>
>>>>And again, please, read my follow up again because you are missing a point
>>>>or two, if not the who gist of our exchange altogether.
>>>Websters Online defines it as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a :
Interesting fable you've weaved here, Bastos but then again you were
'excited,' 'insolent,' and completely 'misjudged' what you were getting
into when you spouted what you did upon entry to the exchange. Furthermore,
and if you would please refer to your previous declaration/definition above,
t'was you who alluded to the 'racial connection,' in coining a term synonymous
with such people. I OTOH sought to underscore your 'intolerance' to the
matter over Clark by citing your immortal words. Nevertheless, I cannot
fault you for invoking and taking the 'racial' tact, since it has been
established that this means a lot to you. But we'll get to this later - Of
course with your non-sequitur above, notwithstanding in a feeble attempt to
correlate my reply to your "stepmother who had such a twisted and warped
mind." Again, I find it fascinating what more we can learn as this who
thread progresses and unfolds : )
>>>No. Perhaps you can explicate, based upon Webster's definition. Is asking
>>>for a clarification, and being unwilling to draw a scientific conclusion
>>>based upon claims made by litigants, intolerant? Show me SPECIFICS, not
>>>just long quotes, and explain why you think it shows my intolerance.
>>>Actually, you will see that I am arguing AGAINT the intolerance of people
>>>who refuse to acknowledge that the US ever did any good by the RP or
>>>Filipinos, or who jump on a bandwagon.
>>'Specifically' speaking and in the context of your quote above, are you
>>now waffling by suggesting that you weren't being pretty much 'intolerant'
>>when you presumed that this was nothing more than some 'witch hunt' by
>>'anti-American rhetoric?' It's a knee-jerk alright, and to what extent
>>is reasonably clear.
>>>Is in intolerant to ask that *some* consideration be given, if only lip
>>>service, to the incredible physical resources the bases left behind?
>>>Nowhere have I seen ANYONE critical of the US here admit that these bases
>>>provide a great economic opportunity and infrastructure in areas that are
>>>not nearly as soundly built. The people I have talked with in the
>>>Philippines recognize how important a resource they are, but I guess to
>>>admit the obvious appears to undermine the position that some take that NO
>>>good came out of the US military in the RP (actually, I know several people
>>>in this NG who might be considered good that came out of US bases...).
>>Your verbose meandering does not, in anyway detract from what was conveyed
>>in your "witch hunt" declaration, which to this point was construed as
>>'intolerant,' and call it what you will per Webster, and whatever one
>>deems as a definition it is without doubt pretty concise.
>Here is what I said (and you quoteback *yet again* without reading) about
>"witch hunt":
>Did I SAY it was a "witch hunt"? No. I asked the question "Is this...?"
>Did you learn what a "rhetorical question" was in school? Rhetorical
>questions, which are defined by their context to the astute reader, are not
>meant to be answered. They are designed to engage the thinking process of
>the reader. So many of the "fallacies" you seem to see are simply your
>failure to understand, because you do not wish to. If I had said, "This is
>a witch hunt", then your criticim would be valid. I did not say so, so your
>observation is inaccurate and out of line.
>Dom's Definition: Any discussion or explanation that you do not understand,
>which rebuts successfully one of your claims, or which you do not wish to
>respond to is labeled "verbose meandering." I don't accept that definition.
Oh come now, Bastos I'm pretty sure it was a 'witch hunt' in your mind. Heck,
or else why would you ever spout it? "Is this a witch hunt?" you asked, and
for which was the first thing that entered you mind, and an opinion pre-conceived
and formulated based upon the 'intolerance,' opposition to the civil-trial,
or even ignorance over this matter in Clark. Furthermore, please, do note
that I've sub-scribed to keeping your meanderings and my points raised in a more
readable format since you habitually like cutting into my rebuts ...Or do you
usually do that in your conversation with others, when confronted with matters
that are beyond you and your tolerance. Moreover, I've no problem with your
strict-denial, and if you feel that by 'defining' my rebuts, however you deem
fit would theraputically benefit you, by all means do so.
>>>>>> :Tell me, were you born pompous and without a sense of humor, or did it
>>>>>> :evolve? Why pick on me when there are others here who flat out blaspheme
>>>>>> :and preach intollerance here? Could it possibly be the color of my skin
>>>>>> :and nationality? And you were talking about "intollerant"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh come now, I'm not 'picking on you!' Heck, and look who is being
>>>>>> "pompous," and without a "sense of humor?" I wasn't the one out here
>>>>>> trolling Filipino sensitivities, and sensibilities with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>o "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine
>>>>>> whether there is any indication that these deaths are out of the
>>>>>> expected range of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there
>>>>>> will die] is a true statement, but not an actionable one ..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> & who could ever forget ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>o "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
>>>>>> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
>>>>>> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
>>>>>> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
>>>>>> transaction, too."
>>>>>>
>>>Again, your perspective has you reading my words incorrectly. Point out
>>>where I say there is -no- possibility that the problems were the result of
>>>toxic poisoning? I haven't ever written that. I have said that one cannot
>>>assume that, that there does not appear to be (in the sources cited)
>>>incontrovertable evidence of a link. I also say that there probably is one.
>>>How is that saying there is -no- possibility? You read the following:
>>In terms of -no- possibility, your perceived opposition to having this trial
>>held, for whatever 'causal relationship' you deem is required, surely suggests
>>it - Which to this point is nothing more than a rebut to your own "assumptions."
>Ah, you are starting to weasel. I am getting through to you! "Percieved
>opposition", now. The only opposition I have is to a civil suit in this
>matter that is being taken up by governments and is beyond, IMO, the pervue
>of a civil actions of indivuals against a government.
Now we are getting to the core of this, and it's about time. Follow me closely
now Bastos. You suggested, and deduced that before any action be taken on
Clark that some 'causal relationship' be established. Fair enough. Yet,
by the same token -is- the basis of your opposition to the suit filed by the
Plaintiffs against the RP and US gov'ts. Diba? Furthermore, I'm glad to see
that your 'perception' in this matter has been clarified, and not so much for
my benefit, but for your own which you continually fail to grasp. Moreover,
since it's now been established as a "fact" that you 'oppose' this, but we'll
address this further and later in this thread which I've already alluded to
but apparently missed (eg. grass-roots, non-government and independent
investigation).
>>>And you know what? The more I read about this, the more I agree that there
>>>is a connection (not that I ever thought there wasn't -- I just believed
>>>that it hadn't been adequately demonstrated, and that people with anti-US
>>>perspectives were accepting as the conclusions of the plaintiffs not because
>>>of science but because of philosophy. That's what the OJ jury did, and I
>>>don't think that's justice). Someone has to play Devil's advocate here to
>>>keep the anti-US sentiment from running too strong. You see, I can take a
>>>skeptical stance all the while believing it is true. I may feel certain
>>>someone is guilty of a crime, but want to make sure the evidence is there
>>>before locking them away. And again, I do not feel a civil suit of
>>>outlandish proportions is the best way to go about it. The best way is to
>>>have governmental meetings where RP representatives show up. So many of the
>>>reports I read prior to Erap's visit stated that the US would probably give
>>>him what he asked for because of the relationship between our countries.
>>>Toxic cleanup and reparations would have been a key target, but was blown.
>>I'm heartened to see (can I use that term?) that you are coming around
>>...Heheheh, "not that I ever thought there wasn't." Think about it,
>>you were having an exchange with me, not with the "anti-US perspectives"
>>out here. But I suppose that is where we draw the line huh? All the
>>meandering non-sequiturs, fallacies, etc. etc. Heck, and I recall you
>>declaring that objectivity doesn't exist out here : )
>Do you have "non-sequitur" on a hotkey? Is this your word for the week, to
>use as many times as you can so it becomes part of your vocabulary?
>Dom's Definitions: Any response which takes pains to discuss a point and
>bring in illustrations is a "non-sequitur".
I believe the use of this term rubs you a certain way, eh Bastos? Heck, I
think I offered a definition (ie. fallacy) as to what a 'non-sequitur' is,
yet as with the rest of this exchange selectively ignored it. And the manner
in which you rave ad infinitum, in opposition to me employing this term in
the course of our debate/exchange is quite apparent in that you fail to
see just where your own short-comings lay. But I'm not one to criticize
how you wish to define, in what you perceive to be my interpretations of
the terms I use, yet it does illustrate to what degree you are unwilling
to accept the fallacies and irrelevant "parables" you toss into this.
Nevertheless, it does however, shed more light as to where you are
coming from, and however limited it may be.
>>>>: Which statement above is incorrect? Are there not monuments honoring
>>>>: Japanese soldiers (whether simple grave markers or more)? Did not Japanese
>>>>: soldiers die in the Philippines? Did they not kill, maim, torture, rape and
>>>>: enslave Filipinos during the course of their invasion and occupation? Did
>>>>: the Japanese not pay for the privelege of erecting their markers? Am I not
>>>>: allowed to wonder at the irony here? Just as I might wonder about the irony
>>>>: of the toxic problem being such a big issue that 7 of 9 Filipino senators
>>>>: failed to show up at the key meeting on the subject with US legislators? Or
>>>>: is that "trolling", too?
>>>>Thanks for that non-sequitur, Bastos ...But I was offering a direct in regard
>>>>to your declaration:
>>>>
>>>> "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
>>>> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
>>>> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
>>>> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
>>>> transaction, too."
>>>>
>>>>...And are you feebly attempting to back-peddle or even deny having taken
>>>>this postulation, in a weak attempt to back a contention filled with
>>>>fallacies? And again, might I remind you that the RP gov't are also
>>>>named as defendants in the class-action suit. Hmmm.
>>>You LOVE that word, non-sequitur, and over-use it whenever you do not have a
Oh, now you were "specific in your witch hunt quip," eh? Whow. And when
you spoke volumes how it wasn't 'perceived' in the manner in which you
conveyed it, huh? Now tell me this, did you enter this thread with an
"open mind?" Of course not, and permit me to illustrate once again, just
how objective you were in your assessment of this matter in Clark:
o " Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet
I have not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any
responses here. Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they
lived there and got sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She
looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the nature
or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
' bandwagon.' ..."
re: <http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=650658770.1&mhitnum=9&CONTEXT=965136707.663617548>
Not very rational, or erudite 'assessment,' huh? : )
>>>Hunh? What does that have to do with the above? What "postulation" (from
>>>your usage, probably the wrong term, making it even harder to understand
>>>you. Stop trying to sound like a Freshman comp writer; use smaller words
>>>you are more certain of). This doesn't make any sense, except for you to
>>>use the words "postulation" and "fallacies" in the same sentence. What
>>>fallacies? That I'm claiming there is -no- possibility of a connection?
>>>Not really a fallacy, and not what I said. Perhaps if you wrote earlier in
>>>your day?
>>Interesting tact, Bastos : ) Are you now critiquing my compositional prose
>>and style of debate? Hahahahaa ...No need to nit-pick over my usage of
>>words, and your perceived opinion of my demeanor in this exchange. Yet,
>>let's get to the 'specifics' shall we? More importantly, let's not
>>"detract" from the point-of-order here, which I'm sure you are subtly
>>attempting to do. Nevertheless, we'll get to the 'connection' in good
>>time. Now please bring your seat to an upright position, secure the
>>tray/table in front of you, relax and enjoy : )
>I hardly think criticizing your misuse of pejorative words to falsely
>characterise what I say is "nit-picking". You never get around to saying
>what my "fallacies" are. Your diatribes are against my opinions and the way
>I express myself, which are not by definition, fallacies. Your assertion
>that I was talking about the Tosco refinery when I was clearly talking about
>the Chevron refinery IS a fallacy. We are generally not arguing about
>issues of fact here -- whether there was contamination, whether the people
>were exposed to said contamination at levels to cause injury, etc. Those
>facts, the misrepresentation of which could be labeled "fallacy", have not
>been the focus of our "discussions". The bulk of our (oh, so time
>consuming) discussions are your misrepresentation that I am claiming the USG
>had no responsibility, that there should not be a hearing, that I am
>insensitive and intolerant, etc. Even if you were correct in your
>misunderstanding of what I said, these are not fallacies. You simply apply
>the word to anything you disagree with, which is not accurate usage.
Your 'fallacies' are strewn throughout this thread, but given your sense
of strict-denial, I'm not the least bit surprised that you are able to
identify them, and we'll get to the Tosco, Chevron, toxic thingy in
good time here, as well as your 'fallacies' in raising issues, what
you term "asides," which I deem "non-sequiturs" with regard to race,
religion, your family, etc. etc. ad infintum. But this is not as 'time
consuming' as you might believe, Bastos. A little 'timing,' time-management,
tolerance and a whole lot of patience is what is required, which evidently
you lack and have demonstrated accordingly.
>>>>: I never said it was without merit; I said it was not an open and shut case
>>>>: that several folks here assumed it was, that full responsibility should not
>>>>: fall on the USG (and later, the USG and RPG), and that I did not believe
>>>>: this was the appropriate venue. Read my clarification below:
>>>>
>>>>: "I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that just
>>>>: because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
>>>>: too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
>>>>: investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
>>>>: upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
>>>>: today). Find the facts. Clean the mess. Reasonably compensate any
>>>>: demonstrated victims. I know it's not that simple, but it sorta boils down
>>>>: to that in my mind."
>>>>Of course it isn't an "open and shut case," and what better way to have
>>>>the -truth- ascertained by ajudicating this matter, which it appears that
>>>>you wholeheartedly opposed. And again, this isn't about some 'envious
>>>>anti-American sentiment so common today,' (cit. yet another hasty
>>>>generalization), since that was de-bunked some time back on this thread
>>>>when you learned that the US wasn't the only defendants in this.
>>>Show me ONCE where I have said it should not be adjudicated! Yes, I believe
>>>that a civil suit is the wrong venue -- for one thing, such a suit requires
>>>a tremendous amount of resources, which I doubt are available. I have
>>>maintained that this is a governmental matter, possibly an extragovernmental
>>>matter for an organization like the WHO. It is a matter for the honorable
>>>politicians of the RPG and USG to work out, and they seem to be working
>>>toward it. The governmental process may or may not take as long as a civil
>>>process, but the civil process if rife with uncertainties, beginning with
>>>jurisdiction and venue. Now, twist this -- this should not be a matter of a
>>>civil suit but of negotiations between nations, since it involves tricky
>>>multinational agreements and decisions. I am NOT saying the mess should not
>>>be cleaned up, and I am NOT saying people should not be compensated. Get
>>>it?
>>Well, why didn't you say that in the first place without having to suggest
>>that this was nothing more than 'anti-American rhetoric?' Hmmm. You've
>>come a long way in defining your position on this, Bastos and I was confident
>>and objectively certain that some semblence of rationality could be drawn
>>from an exchange with you. But let's delve a little more into your objection
>>to a civil suit. I believe it's been nearly a decade since the USAF abandoned
>>the base there in Clark, now wouldn't you think that some sort action would've
>>been taken during the interim? What I mean to say here is that it took a
>>grass-roots, non-government and independent effort to bring this "problem" into
>>the 'proverbial light.' And now that it has, this effort to illuminate this
>>"problem" one would want to exclude those who for the most part have the pertinent
>>information, data ...And facts? Moreover, to leave the ultimate decision as to
>>'what to do' about this "problem" to those who ignored it in the first place?
>Because I percieved that several people had already tried the USG and found
>them guilty simply because it was the USG involved, and there are two sides
>to every story. I get tired of those who have nothing good to say about the
>US, especially while living here, or who blame continuing problems in the RP
>on the US. If Filipinos can be forgiven for having pride in their country,
>with all of it's problems, and defend it against non-Filipinos, then I
>should be allowed to express another take on this issue. If calling for a
>hesitation in the rush to judgement is criminal, I plead guilty.
>Not so much that, as we went beyond my initial reason for posting, which was
>to point out that there might be more to the issue that what exists on the
>face of a few press articles. A lot of interesting information has come out
>here since my initial posts -- information that neither you nor I knew --
>from both the Filipino perspective and the US military's. I'm still not
>clear on what exactly transpired in the negotiations before Clark was
>abandoned; while I have always depended upon PusongPinoye2 in the past for
>insider insights and great references, his nationalism has really come to
>the fore lately in several threads (more so than I recall in the prior 8
>months I have been here). The statements of some military types who were
>there (both here and via email) paint a different picture (although not
>necesarily a mutually exclusive one). PP2's nationalism does not mean that
>what he says is not bang-on, but I am more cautious now in how I accept his
>conclusions. I will never know exactly how much fault lies with the USG,
>how much with the RPG, and how much any others involved (i.e., private
>contractors involved in changing over the bases to civilian use).
>You may be right, but that is something neither of us is likely to ever find
>out for sure. I get the feeling that this issue has been simmering for a
>long time before the suit, and I don't get the feeling that it has had that
>significant impact on the governmental process chugging slowly along. I am
>more inclined to give credit to the health organizations, Filipino
>politicians in the US and the RP, and the various church denominations who
>have raised this issue before the US President and Congress.
Some would dare call it misinformed intolerance, Bastos given that we covered
this ground before and that this was not all about 'anti-American rhetoric.'
And while I see your point in admitting that your knowledge in and of
this matter in Clark is limited, I still don't understand why you came
on to this thread in the manner in which you did with the intolerance and
fallacies, come non-sequiturs. Shucks, there are hundreds if not thousands
of people reading these threads and a majority of whom don't post a
single word, but I'll be the first to admit and I'll assume that they
know far more than I on -any- given subject however relative to Clark.
But on this note, and for the purposes of debate, discussion and understanding
it's pretty clear that the "fault" can be spread around, and for which you
felt prior was nothing more than a "witchhunt" by Filipinos et. al. with regard
to "anti-American" dispositions that are invariably out here. Nevertheless, I'm
not always 'right' about matters as contentious as this, I am however sticking to
the points I've raised and in the course of our exchange to get to know you
better ;-)
>>Interesting ...Why do you think this class-action (civil) suit exists? Think
>>'bout that please. And why not a 'civil process,' since one believes that
>>the negligence in and over this by gov't was not 'criminal?'
>Are you stating that I have said this is not criminal? I'd like you to
>quote that one back to me. I think there may be a bunch of criminal charges
>that could be filed at a variety of levels; those charges would probably
>have to be brought against citizens by their own governments. I'm sure that
>US laws (or uniform military code) were broken, and there are probably some
>criminal charges in how the situation of the lahar refugees were handled by
>the RP government or civilian contractors (whoever has had responsibility
>for the CAPCOM facility).
Freudian slip. But I'll give you the benefit of running that 'one' by you
again, given your opposition to a civil-trial it could be presumed that
no criminal charges will be pursued. Moreover, and since you raised the
OJ Simpson trial, didn't a civil case follow the criminal? Isn't a
civil-trial (venue) usually a last ditch course of action by plaintiffs
when felt that justice in their case was not served? Why not a criminal
trial? Shucks, early on you sought to dismiss the civil-trial altogether
since alluding to the suit as a "witch hunt."
>>>And understand that when I say that the US should pay when they are
>>>compensated for "tenant improvements" that is irony, too. I know darn well
>>>that no one will ever compensate the USG for the bases. And I have also
>>>stated that I believe the US should pay. Those structures and
>>>infrastructures are a form of aid. Too bad no one had the decency to say
>>>even a qualified "Thank you."
>>No sir, you waffled when you were painfully corrected in and of this thingy
>>over 'tenant improvements,' come non-sequitur.
>Referring to JT's response? I simply didn't bother responding. I have been
>dealing with real estate for some 25 years, and have always gotten
>compensation for improvements. I would never improve another person's
>property without consideration. I just signed a 7 year lease on a new
>warehouse today where I got 3 months free rent for a few simple improvements
>I need to make.
>Bottom line for me is that the bases represent a gold mine if used properly.
>To pretend that they are not an asset is disingenuous.
Twenty-five years as a realtor and priest, I'm impressed : )
Stick to the 'context' and focus here please. This isn't about what you
did for 25 years - And in thinking that you were some sort of preacher
for the most part of your life, and now for a greater part a realtor
doesn't really address the point of order, and which you conceded
in:
" When JT tells me I am out in left field, I have to sit
up -- if *JT* thinks that, I'd better think about it!
That cautions me that it may be too late in the night for
me to be posting coherently. Sometimes my arguments get
off track, or I stretch a point (perhaps to the point of
rediculousness), or I say an inappropriate thing ..."
re: <dE0g5.62620$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
Aw shucks. I went and did it again : ) The 'bottom line' here is that you
presented a non-sequitur, if not blatantly false assumption and now you
are indeed 'weaseling.' Yes, of course those bases are 'gold mines,' but
your declaration that the RP re-compensates the US (over this matter in
Clark no less) for the 'improvements made,' per the lease, rent or whatever
one sees fit, is a not valid declaration ...It's a weak and faulty rebut.
But you've dropped JT's name on this thread so much I'm wondering what
he has to do with the 'Toxics In Clark?'
>>Oh no, Bastos. It's not so much the "Japanese" aspect of your non-sequitur,
>>but the suggestion that the Philippines is morally corrupt eg. 'by allowing
>>graves to be erected' - And please re-consider your thoughts on this:
>>
>> "I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
>> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
>> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
>> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
>> transaction, too."
>>
>>Yes, there are some phrases here that require a wee-bit of attention
>>such as, '...Coming from a country' and '...money involved in that
>>transaction too' are indeed compelling, doncha think? And your
>>inference was? You are too easy, Bastos : )
>1. Did the RP allow these grave markers or monuments to be erected, or did
>the Japanese do it without any form of governmental permission? The fact is
>that the RP allowed these markers to be placed. Yes?
>2. Money was involved. Money to buy the land, to get approval, to lobby
>local and national politicians. Yes?
>My inference was, as stated above, that I consider it ironic that there is
>such animosity directed against the US for the Clark toxics and any human
>suffering related to this, yet time has allowed the horrors of Japanese
>occupation (which I'm sure you will agree were of an order of magnitude
>greater -- something like 15-18,000 US and Pinoy soldiers, plus "collateral
>civilians", died in the Bataan death march alone) to be diminished to a
>point where some honor can be granted to these invading soldiers.
Point One (1.) Yes.
Point Two (2.) Yes, perhaps. Maybe. I'm not really sure what was involved
in that regard
But yeah, you munged your words together so well, that even this could be
never, ever be misconstrued, eh? C'mon, you know full well of what you
suggested, and if I said it before, I'll say it again ...It's an
'affront' to any self-respecting Filipino. And please, take exceptional
note of the emphatic certainty of your quote above IN the 'context' and
'temperature' of our exchange, Bastos. It was indeed 'telling.'
>>>I have no contempt for religious denominations. I have studied them, and
>>>their effects on history, as an integral part of my Dominican education (the
>>>Dominicans taught me religious history and philosophy and the Franciscans
>>>taught me theological history and theology). One need not feel contempt for
>>>a philosophy or theology to criticize how it is implemented in a social
>>>setting. One of the dangers facing social, political and economic reform in
>>>the RP is the unwillingness of some to confront those aspects of the RCC
>>>that are at least partially to blame. If you complain of foot pain and
>>>someone points out that there there is a nail through your show, and you
>>>say, "Maybe my shoe's too tight", you are not going to quickly solve the
>>>problem. An obese person with adult onset diabetes or high blood pressure
>>>may be unwilling to accept that their obesity is an issue, but it is, a
>>>possibly deadly one. For the RP to thrive and prosper, nothing can remain
>>>sacred in the quest for solving problems. If people say, "But those things
>>>that we hold sacred that are harming us define what we are," you have a
>>>choice to make.
>>Perhaps 'contempt' was the wrong word ...Perhaps 'indiscriminate,' and or
>>'disrespectful,' would be more appropriate. And while I laud you for your
>>pursuit(s) in & of certain religo-philisophical endeavors, why prod those
>>who are more intimate with their faith? You know as well as I do how
>>predominantly Christian/Catholic the Philippines is. You come into this
>>thread, with the banner of slighting religion (your religion) in sharing
>>your story about impersonating a priest and taking tithings ...Heheheh,
>>and again, I suppose one had to be there to see the humor, and that's what
>>I imparted, yes? But no, the non-sequitur and length of this aspect of our
>>exchange is now where it is - Nowhere. But look around, threads involving
>>religion will pop up now and then on SCF, but hardly in the context of
>>"Toxics In Clark."
>Yes, it was off topic -- I had no idea that this would drag on. It was, in
>part, my attempt to set aside any acrimony regarding the Clark topic (which
>I thought had been taken about as far as it could go here... little did I
>know!). Perhaps you are being unintentionally insulting with your statement
>that others here are more "intimate" with their faith than I am; perhaps you
>meant to say "are more sensitive to jokes being made about their faith".
So be it. And I still believe it might have been ROFL hilarious if one had
been there, and who knew you personally and of the circumstances around
this get together.
>>>>Furthermore, this isn't about 'some whiteboy' as you so eloquently term,
>>>>criticizing the ills and problems of a nation and her people, it's really
>>>>about the preception one leaves behind when declaring matters as such
>>>>...And in terms of 'pigeonholing,' well, if you haven't noticed, I've been
>>>>leaving that up to you.
>>>To some degree, I am responsible for the impression I leave behind. But if
>>>someone steadfastly refuses to accept either further explanations of my
>>>intent (it's called "communications") or even acknowledge when I state that
>>>my position has changed, that person holds sole responsibility for any
>>>aftertaste. I cannot help you there.
>>As negligent as it was, I'm pretty certain of that : )
>Again, as negligent as WHAT was? Talk about non-sequiturs! You need to
>make some referent to what you are talking about for it to make sense. You
>had one post to me where you made specific statements; since then, you
>simply don't respond to what I write. I find that frustrating. It's hard
>to rebut someone who doesn't say anything but "you write meandering
>fallacies."
Reference? You want references? Let's take all of your quotes that I've
cited, put them all together, and start all over again! Whaddya say? Let's
parse them accordingly and scuttle what we've established to this point and get
to the 'negligence' in and of them. Okey?
>>You made it pretty clear in this recent reply your position on this. Yet,
>>I'm still wondering why the slough confrontational non-sequiturs and the
>>manner in which you introduced yourself into this thread. Which of course,
>>was pretty plain to see. Trolling? Perhaps.
>I don't troll. That's for teens and folks who like to agitate in a venue
>where they are safe to act in ways they never would in TRW. I had actually
>never heard the term before coming to this NG, because my time has been
>spent in moderated forums in the past where such things didn't occur.
Welcome to the SCF and the USENET
>If I wanted to stir people up, there are many things I could say here that
>would set the flames flying (all I would need do is repeat what my wife says
>about Filipinos and the Philippines -- the things that many Filipinos here
>say, but coming from a Kano they would be trolling). I know the buttons and
>insults that would set people off here. I try to avoid these things (for
>example, even though I'd rather not type as many characters you will never
>see me write the four-letter "F" word referring to Filipinos). I know that
>I am an outsider, a guest as it were, and I try to mind my manners. I find
>it interesting that someone like you can get so much anti-Filipino mileage
>out of innocent things I say. Of course, you translate them into
>sensational midrashes like "morally bankrupt", but still -- I am a pussycat
>when it comes to criticism of the RP.
Well, coining the psuedo "Bastos Kano" does stir images and does play upon
the imagination of many Filipinos in, for the most part, a Filipino-forum,
would 'stir people up,' wouldn't you say? And while I acknowledge (which
I wasn't too clear on before) your intent here, and as shared with you
prior this is pretty much a toasted NG with embers of flamewars still
smoldering in the landscape ...Moreover, it doesn't take much for a
conflagration to rekindle exchanges much more ...How do I say, as civil
as our exchange? Sure you are a 'pussy cat,' (funny someone mentioned
that to me earlier this week), but one wouldn't go around tossing blood-
dripping meat in a den of tigers, or cut oneself open with a knife in
a school of sharks, wot?
>I introduced myself into this thread bringing up that the resources the US
>left behind in the bases never get acknowledged in discussions of what the
>US did or did not do when they left, or why and how they left. I still
>think this is a pertinent issue. So far, no one has denied that the bases
>represent a nice asset for the Philippines, but I have yet to see any
>Filipino acknowledge their worth. As I stated initially, this surprises me
>somewhat because many of the people I talked with in 1995 and 1996 there had
>great hopes for economic renewal and true community economic growth (of an
>acceptable kind, rather than the usual "commerce" that grows up around
>military bases) involving the base infrastructures.
I thought I'd never get the opportunity to share with you that I know first
hand of how those bases are being utilized. I go back there as frequently
as possible (it goes without saying I've many ties/kin there) and one'd be
impressed as to what is being done with them, especially in the way of
constructing new mfg. facilities, to the repaving and maintenance done
to the airfield at the former CUBI NAS in Subic. The work at the SBMA and
Clark, and since the time those you have 'talked to' in '95, '96 has been
slow but progressing, but it is 'happening.' Furthermore, these bases, or
'freeports' as they are called are keys to the Philippines economic growth
in Southeast Asia, which to a great extent, and which I alluded to very early
in this thread, is attributed to & thanks to U.S. military - But this doesn't
exonerate them, nor the RP gov't for that matter in their responsibility to
those who have died and suffered at Clark, and possibly other former US
military sites in the Philippines.
>>>>Perhaps, blind-faith in the benevolence of both the US & RP government, and
>>>>what some bureaucrat at the RP CDC has to say about the well waters there?
>>>>And while you continue to make examples out of your family experience, which
>>>>I sincerely offer my empathy, of and for whatever reasons of your kin passing
>>>>away, this again has no bearing upon this matter of international concern and
>>>>those Filipinos who are seeking justice and compensation in this
>>>>matter.
>>>I was trained and served as a preacher for years. We use stories to
>>>illustrate points. It has a certain history in our profession, dating back
>>>a few years. Sorry if these illustrations do not reach you, but I'll
>>>continue to use them. Habit and homiletics.
>>I see where the pontification comes from ...Inclusive of the meandering,
>>fallacies and non-sequiturs ;-)
>Now who is not being "intimate" with their spirituality? Good preachers
>don't meander, or fill their sermons with fallacies or non-sequiturs. You
>must have a very low opinion of theology and the priesthood to even say such
>in jest and risk offending all of the Catholics and Protestants here who
>would not want their priests so slandered. See how easy it is to take an
>innocent remark and turn it on it's ear?
Heck, priests, preachers et. al. do indeed 'pontificate,' they
'meander' and are not above 'fallacies and non-sequiturs,' too,
but in the context of this exchange between you and I, it's indeed
fitting, has this thread cause you to take irreversable leave of
your sense of humor? B^)
>>>>But before I am once again -detracted- by your impassioned retort,
>>>>and non-sequitur, I must admit, your words are compelling, Bastos
>>>>...Now where did you say it "MAY NOT be actionable?" Hmmm? Your
>>>>declaration here appears pretty emphatic:
>>>>
>>>> "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine whether
>>>> there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected range
>>>> of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
>>>> statement, but not an actionable one ..."
>>>Geez, read the words, don't just paste. What part of "determine whether" do
>>>you not understand? That clearly indicates an investigation, and a lack of
>>>a final judgement from me either way. Just because you believe the facts do
>>>not merit investigation, do not fault me for wanting to be certain of the
>>>truth. Too many people on death row have been exonerated by advances in DNA
>>>technology after "open and shut cases" for anyone to state that an
>>>investigation is not called for.
>>Whow. Now we are delving into the "death penalty!" No, Bastos, just be
>>'specific' as to how you suggested that it "may not" as opposed to your
>>emphatic declaration in "but not." Can I get an 'amen?' : )
>Sorry for the long quoteback, but it is necessary to answer your question.
No problem. I'm simply interested to see just how verbose you can get : )
>The "but not" is from a sentence that is an illustration, not a statement of
>position, and has no relevance to my stated position on this. You are
>quoting completely out of context -- your "may not" and "but not" are not on
>the same playing field. The "but not" is from a true sentence -- that
>everyone who has ever lived has died, but obviously not every death is
>grounds for a suit. That statement is undeniably true (unless someone has
>managed to discover immortality). The "may not" is from my actual position
>statement. The illustration is to demonstrate the reasonable doubt that a
>jurist supposedly brings into a deliberation; not all things that appear
>connected are.
"Has no relevance to your stated position?" what's it doing there then?
A garnishment next to a club sandwich and sum fries? And whow! What
a staggering revelation as to what you -truuuly- meant, that could never
ever be misconstrued. Heck it's so dang deep that one would need some
scuba gear and a US Navy sub-rescue unit to extract the essense of this
earth-shattering definition of what you meant. But then again, you
are right 'not all things appear' to be 'connected' here with a whole
lot of 'reasonable doubt' in this soon to be 'meandering' dissertation : )
Ah, but yes, an introduction to yet another non-* err, "aside" -
While I acknowledge the 'causal' requirement in any jury deliberation, and
the procedure by which 'evidence' is gathered and analyzed, all this for
the most part has been the work of those non-government, non-military
entities who've been 'investigating' this matter. Now while one can
suggest that certain 'motivations and intent' are afoot here, it doesn't
mean that the venue for a civil-proceeding should dismissed, when in
fact for years those ulterior 'motivations & intentions' have been dormant,
or for that fact non-existent.
Moreover, you are being disingenous when you declare that 'I opposed,' and
see your position on this "open & shut" as a 'fallacy,' when in fact I agreed
that it wasn't ...Heck, I believe you omitted that aspect of my rebut in hopes
of propogating this blatant falsehood, but my newly improved Anti-Non-Sequitur
-Troll-Busting-script(tm) has proven it's worth! Heheheh ...Please feel free
to search for it above ...And that wasn't very sporting of you, Bastos. Not
in the least bit B^)
>>"Huge sections?" they were key quotes that you just as soon dismiss
Yes Bastos, and please consider -why- you are continuing to 'defend' yourself
against the 'things' you did indeed share/posts. Juxtapose them to all the
meandering 'asides,' non-sequiturs, parables, fallacies etc. (both your's
and mine) and what do we have? Inconsistency? Context-taken-out-of-context
-then-to-be-omitted-then falsely demonstrated in yet another non-sequitur?
Yes, of course we wouldn't get anywhere, but we have now haven't we? But what
is the collateral-damage here? Our egos? Ha! I call 'em as I see them, and
since you strongly feel that my citation of your fallacies are un-warranted,
or even non-existent or transcend even our mere physical existence, I'm inclined
to believe that there is yet a lot more to be divulged here with regard
to your position in Clark.
>>>>Whoa. I'll go a step further. Where was the US/RP government when pleas for
>>>>assistance fell on deaf ears when signs of toxic poisoning began to surface
>>>>there at CABCOM? Did it take a independent and grassroots effort to
>>>>"investigate" this for the US/RP government to take notice? Of course,
>>>>and now we are where we are in this -ahem- 'investigation,' and lacksadasical
>>>>action by RP legislators currently in the US.
>>>Seems to me I read that the RPG offered to move the lahar victims
>>>(remember?). One reason they gave for staying was that they didn't want to
>>>pull their children out of local schools. When I pointed out the problem
>>>with this attitude, you said (I think it was you, but it's not worth the
>>>time to retrace) something to the effect that it shows how dedicated they
>>>are to their children's education. "Well, Jun died of mercury poisoning,
>>>but he died educated." Probably the RPG should have been more forceful, as
>>>they would in evacuating people from a lava flow. The fact is that some
>>>action was attempted (and I believe some did leave).
>>You are shifting blame here, Bastos and yet another fallacy. Please stick to
>>the 'specifics' in the context of my assertation. And while there is no doubt
>>that some of those afflicted are partly to blame, given the numerous warning
>>in and of Pinatubo as well as CABCOM, what did it take to have this matter
>>addressed by both governments? My how you meander.
>Please define what you mean by "fallacy", as you use it so often, and under
>different contexts.
Non-sequitur, irrelevance, and what your termS, 'evasion, smoke and mirrors,'
yes? : )
>By "your assertion", I gather you are referring to the question of where the
>USG/RPG was when complaints first arose. I responded that as I understood
>it the RPG tried to move people out of harm's way; some moved, some didn't.
>THAT'S where the RPG was. The USG was in the States, as they had been asked
>to leave/left voluntarily; I am unclear if talks were under way at this
>stage about dealing with the toxics problems, but one might assume they were
>because the issue had been part of the negotiations apparently before the US
>military withdrew. The REAL question is whether more could be done, and the
>obvious answer is yes, by all parties. Where is the "fallacy" in saying the
>RPG tried to move people? Did they not try to do so? Then my statement
>that they did is a fallacy. Otherwise, no cigar. Where am I shifting the
>blame? I acknowledge that the USG and RPG knew of the problem before the US
>left, and the RPG knew of the complaints because they sought to move people.
>You acknowledge that the victims are partly to blame. There is enough blame
>to go around, and I have never said any one party is blameless or even gone
>to the point of declaring who should shoulder the most blame (I would have
>to have knowledge I lack to put the majority of blame on the US; some have
>claimed authoritatively here that offers to clean up were made by the USG
>and rejected by the RPG, and others have claimed no less authoritatively
>that that is not how it happened). To me, this is not about "blame", but
>about fixing the situation in a way that is fair to all.
Again, I agree that it isn't all 'about blame,' but to reach a resolution and
agreement to having this matter 'cleaned-up.' Yet, in this meandering
discourse you ask where your own fallacy was in this context, and I'd
like for you to follow the thread above, with regard to the "attitude" of
those Filipinos who wouldn't leave and the non-sequitur (post-hoc) to some
imaginary individual named "Jun" who died. Or are you now ridiculing the
determination of the Filipino who would want to have their children educated?
But since your indolence impedes you ...Heck I'll post my rebut to the "context"
of that exchange for your consideration:
" ...Interesting analogy, in trying to paint the Filipino-people there as
simians (ie. monkeys), it does not inject humor but a only serves to enrage
those who are not privy to one's morbid sense of humor in light of disaster
that was Pinatubo and the deaths in Clark, nor the suggestion that life in the
Philippines, and in the context of this tragedy some cartoon to be ridiculed.
Neverthless, I've no personal knowledge of [families both 'legitimate,' or not]
what their true intents were, nor to what degree they knew of when it came to
how much danger they were in. However, it does speak volumes in their
determination to continue their children's education, despite of their lack
of knowledge, or just plain ignorance of the dangers which laid beneath them.
Yet, the inference that they were ultimately and singularly wrong, and that
'old Uncle Sugar' (ie. the U.S.) is above consideration in this negligence
is nothing more than a clear apologistic attempt at patronization, if not a
weak apologistic manner of discourse and exchange ..."
re: <DUtf5.468633$VR.59...@news5.giganews.com>
Hmm. Yeah, I suppose it did stem from a non-sequitur to begin with and I
see why you readily dismiss it, not worth your effort to remineisce : )
>>>>: Frankly, I think it rather ironic that this group of "elite" folks is so
>>>>: often speaking for the common citizens of the RP. Some here may have
>>>>: emerged from poverty, but odds are that in having access to this forum they
>>>>: are in an earning category and social class far above the majority of
>>>>: Filipinos in the RP. If they have beaten the system and pulled themselves
>>>>: out of poverty to achieve success they are in a small minority. Our
>>>>: observations are probably not from the perspective of someone who considers
>>>>: living in a garbage dump and having an "occupation" there preferential to
>>>>: moving elsewhere where they have no source of livlihood.
>>>>Now we are back to the "garbage dump" thingy ...Gee, with the suggestion
>>>>of biased 'elitism' by those who have access to soc.culture.filipino to
>>>>boot! Will the non-sequiturs and meandering ever cease? And what this
>>>>has to do with you being against this case going to trial is somewhat
>>>>beyond me.
>>>It should be self-evident that this group is not representative of the
>>>majority of Filipinos in the RP. According to Dr. Mahar Mangahas of Social
>>>Weather Stations, only 1% of Filipinos in the RP have internet access (as of
>>>Dec 1999). One percent is a fairly elite crowd. The educational level, job
>>>experience and intelligence ("bandwidth" as JT would say) of the people here
>>>is above the norm in just about any environment outside a university.
>>Okey.
>>>Pull out your dictionary, and look up "aside". You see, there are no rules
>>>to what I write here -- I decide what to include. I will inject any asides
>>>I want, any illustrations I desire, and any examples I choose. The
>>>necessity of illustrations is demonstrated by your inability to grasp very
>>>elemental aspects of what I say. I include illustrations and stories to
>>>help you see the point. You keep missing it, unfortunately.
>>Okey, with that said and undisputably true, with regard to the rules,
>>but I could readily declare that of yourself, with regard to 'grasping'
>>certain concepts, and opinions? Or is it a one-way street here? And
>>while I find your 'illustrations' interesting, more often than not it
>>they do detract from the 'specifics' of the topic of debate.
>Since you fail to grasp my words in either discourse or illustration, I
>imagine they do detract. But what we are having is not a debate, but rather
>my making statements and you saying that what I say is fallacious,
>meandering, off-topic or a non-sequitur. Little meat in what you write; I
>find myself endlessly correcting your possibly deliberate misunderstandings
>of my statements, only to have these same things pop up in the next post, so
>I try another tact to get through to you.
>What concepts do I fail to grasp? Be specific, so I may agree or disagree.
>You see, saying things like I keep missing it "with regard to 'grasping'
>certain concepts, and opinions". WHAT concepts and opinions? Why leave it
>to me to guess what you are referring to? "I am thinking of something
>blue..."
More notably and remotely, the 'monkey' inference and context above; Second
...Look at this entire thread - I think I've illustrated to the best of my
ability as to where your short-comings are. Heck, exercise a wee-bit of
patience, Bastos and I find it funny that you find 'little meat' in my
rebuts to you, wherefore you're replies would indicate that this declaration
is quite far from what you deem is lacking. And of course you can't stomach
what I'm dishing out ...Your not the cook, your the priest, remember?
>>>> "I suppose one had to be there catch the humor ..."
>>>>
>>>>Di ba? And who I am in terms of this 'reply' is who you were attempting
>>>>to convey some concept of humor however you deem funny, and myself offering
>>>>nothing more sharing an observation completely with the context of SCF.
>>>>But that's a minor asidein and of the crux of the point of order involving
>>>>those seeking justicein Clark, but a tangent that I pursued and thus again
>>>>extrapolated the fallacy therein.
>>>Again, so obtuse for such an intelligent person. Read the third sentence in
>>>what you quote from me above. The point is that you give me no reason to
>>>value your observations; critical observations from strangers is called
>>>"criticism". You don't tell me WHY you think the things you do, and we have
>>>no history which allows me to understand why you say the things you do (say,
>>>if you were my priest, or my doctor, or my professor, or my friend whose
>>>judgement I have learned to value over a period of time), so how can your
>>>negative "observations" be taken as anything but criticism? It kinda
>>>follows...
>>Yes, sometimes for the lack of words I can't make myself any clearer than
>>I have. Sure. And again, I'm nobody for you to 'take my words to heart,'
>>yet you employ a certain amount of passion & effort in trying to convince
>>me, or anyone for that matter, just how 'funny' it is. And again, "I suppose
>>one had to be there catch the humor ..." but you see it as an opportunity
>>to hyperbole, or attempt to lay the foundation upon which religious contentions
>>could invariably be spawned from this. Nice tact, but again quite a
>>non-sequitur, and an detracting "aside" to the focus of this exchange.
>You know why? Because I want you to understand me, and you obviously don't.
>I don't mind being criticized or disliked for what I believe in (Giants
>Rule, Dodgers Suck!), but it bothers me to have someone distort what I say.
>If I believed some of the things you think I do, *I* wouldn't think very
>highly of myself. It's not a comfortable feeling being accused of something
>you are not guilty of. Lord knows I am guilty of enough that is dispicable
>without having bogus crimes set at my door.
Between me and you, I want to make it perfectly clear in that I 'want you
to understand' and where I'm coming from as well. And I'll admit, even
though you are really out there and playing in the ivy looking for the
ball, it doesn't mean that I'm going to throw up my hands and say "What's
the use?" in resignation. I'm not perfect, and I hope you have the
same opinion of yourself. Moreover, I'm not as erudite as you when it
comes to religious pontifications and parables, but I see your arguments
as something that needs to be addressed. Now the manner in which I am
approaching this is of course not to your liking, but follow closely and
maybe we'll see just what might be gleaned from so much information,
perspective and opinion.
>>>>: As to why I do not "chat" online, my schedule (and my inclination) do not
>>>>: allow it. This is not a SCF thing -- when ICQ first came along many friends
>>>>: around the world used it, and while I took a stab at it I never got into it.
>>>>: I cannot rearrange my schedule to fit in with others; NGs allow me to
>>>>: converse whenever and wherever I have the time. I've a a family that is the
>>>>: center of my universe, plus a business to run 7/365 that goes almost 24
>>>>: hours a day. I sneak these sessions in when time permits.
>>>>Well I do appreciate you at least trying. Nevertheless, the effort that
>>>>you've employed to this point is commendable and by the same token I can
>>>>relate to your responsibilities. And on the otherhand, this exercise is
>>>>quite stimulating to see to what lengths you'd go in re-constructing your
>>>>argument(s) ;-)
>>>And the lengths you go to misread and distort what I say. Splendid
>>>exercise, what?
>>And the frequency in the manner in which you change/convolute what you've
>>said, along with the non-sequiturs, and hyperboles could be invariably be
>>misconstrued ...Or is that the objective in and of your part of the exercise,
>>di ba?
>You want me to illustrate the places you have changed in our discussion?
>Change means you are alive and learning. Life isn't about winning or losing
>for me, it's about getting what I want for my family and me without taking
>away the quality of life of others. I don't need to win arguments, and
>there is nothing wrong in admitting I was wrong or I have learned. I have
>done that numerous places in our discussion, and darned if I'm still here in
>spite of the loss of face. Just as when you concede a point it does not
>diminish you in my eyes. My wife's pride is so fierce that even when it is
>evident to both of us she was wrong, she won't say so in words because she
>feels that to admit that will make me see her as less than I saw before. In
>7 years she has gotten to a point where she says it nonverbally, but she
>still doesn't buy it at gut level when I say the refusal to admit you are
>wrong makes you smaller in the eyes of others who know better, not the other
>way around.
Yeah, but 'change' as a means to convolute a previous contention is not
the best way to conduct oneself in a debate such as ours, where a number
of non-sequiturs and contradictions abound. Yet, it leaves the door open
to more convoluted misinterpretations and misrepresentations. Nevertheless,
I comprehend what you mean by change, and being 'alive' and 'learning,'
and that this is not a matter of 'face,' or the loss thereof ...It is
an 'exercise,' which we both adhered to early on, yes? Now shall we
continue this endeavor on tolerance, learning and understanding? ;-)
>>>Sorry. Evasion. Smoke and mirrors. If you have something to say, be
O "...First, determine the facts, then address the issues without
anti-American rhetoric and finger pointing ..."
Your suggestion in the context of our exchange here was quite clear.
>Show me where I suggest that race and genetics have anything to do with the
>situation. Show me where I say anything about race or genetics (I do
>mention genetics as one possible cause of problems that might be mistaken
>for contamination, but that is a hypothetical offered in the same sense that
>genetics is involved with a given person's liklihood of developing certain
>diseases such as diabetes or breast cancer that run in the family). I try
>to be very careful in what I write to never say "Filipinos are..." because I
>don't believe they are as such. People who live in certain areas will have
>certain similarities, and first generation US immigrants will share certain
>characteristics that their offspring lack, but those things are cultural,
>not genetic. To say that I have ever implied or stated that race and
>genetics are a factor in this situation is a complete falsehood and betrays
>your perspective -- if he is critical, it must be because it's Filipinos
>he's talking about. If you knew me, you would know that I put very little
>emphasis on race and a great deal of emphasis on culture as determiners of
>behavior. I am definitely in the "nurture" side of the nature/nurture
>debate.
o " If I felt the Filipino people were morally bankrupt I wouldn't bother
posting here. You are saying that for a white boy to criticize corruption,
dishonesty and opportunism in the Philippines (which even you must be aware
is a big problem, on the front page of the papers there every day) involves
both "trolling" and a blanket condemnation of the Filipino people ..."
It was not a question as to why you are here, although it did come out later,
but here you define the parameters of your suggestion with regard to race,
come genetics ...
o "I would suggest that you might also have the same said of you; aside from
genetics, how different are we in our distance, physically and philosophically,
to Clarke? ...I have to walk a fine line in this NG, being the Bastos Kano ..."
Yes, nothing like the falsehood of omitting a rebut and calling it false, eh?
So much for 'perspective' in that regard.
>>>>: I have to walk a fine line in this NG, being the Bastos Kano. I feel that I
>>>>: cannot just state my feelings like JT, or rant like Siomai. I will not take
>>>>: a self-flagellatory stance against the US and Americans like TJH. But I'm
>>>>: not blind. I live with a Filipina, have two full-blooded Filipino kids and
>>>>: a "Kanoy" toddler, and we always have one or more family members staying
>>>>: with us from the RP. We have daily communication with the family back home,
>>>>: and unlike several here I consider it a privelege to assist my family with
>>>>: their education, their medical bills, their businesses and their homes.
>>>>: Daily, here and in TRW, I have to face the paradox of so many Filipinos
>>>>: admiring and wanting what the US has and produces, and on the other hand
>>>>: those who criticize and condemn the US. There is a guilt that many people
>>>>: seem to feel -- I want the chocolate, but know it's bad for me, so I'll say
>>>>: I hate the chocolate, all the while hating myself for wanting the chocolate!
>>>>Ah, I see you are coming around. But why would you want to state your feelings
>>>>like JT, or even 'rant like Siomai?' etc. etc. Be yourself. Be the BASTOS
>>>>KANO that we've come to know and understand, and bilib it or not you're doing
>>>>a great job so far. Yet, you're tugging at heart-strings, Bastos imbued with
>>>>your postulations against having the trial held ...More importantly the
>>>>correlation isn't all too clear and of course, the pity-points notwithstanding.
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>Sigh. perhaps when you grow up you'll understand. I'm tired of sitting in
>>>the hall of the Freshman dorm talking with you.
>>Oh no! Please don't go! 'Thrall me with your acumen,' and stun me with
>>your mundane sense of injustice and justice. Tell me more of your parables
>>meant to confuse, confound and to obfuscate. Share with me just how much
>>the Philippines means to you, and or how much it doesn't in terms of the
>>hardships of those who aren't as materially wealthy as ourselves.
>Mundane sense of justice? Oh, I see -- that I believe that someone is
>innocent until proven guilty, that people and governments should not be
>tried in the press, that plaintiffs in a lawsuit are not necesarilly the
>most unimpeachable source on what is really going on, that facts are needed
>to back claims. Guess I am mundane. Just hope you get me on a jury if you
>are ever wrongly charged with a crime.
I suppose you missed the humor in that one and have retained your interest : )
>You see, your whole attitude toward me is revealed in this little paragraph.
>You feel I am mundane in my sense of justice (as opposed to ... whimsical?
>Exotic?). You have determined that my parables are intended to confuse,
>confound and obfuscate, rather than illustrate. Perhaps -- here's an
>epiphany -- you find them so confusing because you will not let go of your
>misconceptions of what I say, and thus they seem to run counter to what you
>believe I mean. That would be confusing. I say, "This leaf is green, just
>like that bush over there." You say, "Why is he pointing to a green bush
>when I know what he really just said was the leaf was yellow?"
Heheheh ...I'm glad you changed your mind to stay, and to literally
take my 'sarcasm' to heart in this protracted litany over what you
deem is important to this exchange, and what is not. Neverthless,
the fact of the matter here is that your 'sense of justice' was
pretty unclear in and of your opposition to having the civil-trial
held, and for which this retort was tendered.
>>>Get this. I don't need or want pity. I have what a whole lot of people in
>>>the world want. I envy no one (well, perhaps Bill Gates) and have a heck of
>>>a lot of fun in being just where I want to be in life. When I talk about my
>>>family, it is to try to give you and others a glimpse into who I am and what
>>>I stand for. It's one reason I am one of the very few here who uses his
>>>full name, reveal my true email, and even give people links to my web page
>>>to see my family. I use a handle so there will be no question as to who or
>>>what I am. Since my family is the most important thing to me, is it any
>>>wonder that they make their way into so many of my posts? If you think
>>>having a great family is a "pity-point", then I have to pity you. You hide
>>>behind a facade, behind euphemisms and allusions. That's your choice, but I
>>>would feel dishonest doing that.
>>Oh, come now, Bastos. We were debating Clark ...Not your family! Whom I, in
>>all sincerity believe, like you yourself are wonderful people. Shucks, I even
>>lauded you on how much you declared your respect and love for them. Heck,
>>I myself would consider infusing my own family experiences, if and when it
>>was appropriate ...But evidently, your manner in applying this to our
>>exchange was not ...How do I say? Timely? Given the civil, yet restrained
>>tone of our debate.
>Yet you are not the person to decide that. Once again your youthful
>arrogance shines through. Who are you, in this debate, this ng, this life,
>to tell me when it is appropriate to relate stories about my life? Can't
>you see how presumptuous that is?
Believe it or not, I am, simply because you are 'nobody' to me out
here & vice-versa ...Remember that one? I don't need to know of
your personal family-life and how much you love and care for your
family, or whatever achievements you've made. Heck, it should go
without saying, in hopes you would stick to the point-of-order and
context in and of this debate.
>>>I am myself, and you find fault in it because you don't understand me.
>>>That's your problem, not mine. I've done all I can to help you, but have to
>>>admit defeat. Your impenetrable preconceptions are beyond even my
>>>prodigious powers to crack.
>>No! No! No! 'Tis I who will yield to your vast knowledge and 'truth,'
>>in good time. Yet, the same could be said in your own opinion of me. But
>>that doesn't mean that it has to end on this note. Moreover, and to this
>>point, we have accomplished a lot in getting to the proverbial roux over
>>Clark - Wouldn't you say?
>Not really. PusongPinoye2 in related posts has done much more to shed light
>on the situation.
Don't forget T'song, and Ben Guadiz as well.
>>>>: In one sense you are right, in that I really don't care for the Philippines,
>>>>: per se, except as circumstances there severly affect my family living there.
>>>>: I have no loyalty to the RP as a country. I have no unfettered love for the
>>>>: the cuisine, and the beauty stirs me no more than other tropical places I
>>>>: have visited. I have met great people and not so great people there, just
>>>>: about like anywhere else in the world. I have no identification with the
>>>>: history of the people there, as it is not my history. Yet because my family
>>>>: is there, and all of the things we discuss here affect them on a daily
>>>>: basis, I am very much interested in conditions in the RP and what can be
>>>>: done to make them better. I do not want my family to have to wonder, every
>>>>: day, how to make one small fish feed 5. I do not want family members abused
>>>>: by the police, the military, or the justice system. I do not want rich
>>>>: plutocrats stealing everything that is needed to improve production, health
>>>>: and safety. It's all about family for me -- these are my people, and I
>>>>: cannot undue what a corrupt and uncaring government inflicts upon them. I
>>>>: am not Filipino, but my family is. My ties are stronger than most of the
>>>>: 2nd generation Pinoys I know in the States, so many of whom view the
>>>>: Philippines as something that has nothing to do with them, and who have no
>>>>: desire to ever visit. I know several who cannot locate the RP on a map. I
>>>>: try to learn a little Tagalog, here and there, not beuase of the beauty of
>>>>: the language but because I feel it shows my family I respect them when I use
>>>>: it (and it provides the kids lots of giggles and howls of laughter at my
>>>>: expense).
>>>>: Randy
>>>>Quite a stretch from your initial position against having the case tried, and
>>>>while I wholeheartedly comprehend each and every word you've stated and shared
>>>>to this point which has very little semblence to what we are trying to achieve
>>>>in obtaining some consensus over Clark, it's now somewhat clear where you
>>>>are coming from. You have no affinity for a nation (per se) where the
>>>>'significant half' and reasons by which you are here, your family is from,
>>>>and for that fact spout confrontational opinions in a newsgroup of those
>>>>who are of the same ethnicity, yet you justify your position via faulty
>>>>analogies, non-sequiturs and just about every compositional fallacy under
>>>>the sun, over not having the trial held at all based on your endearing
>>>>'love, and respect for your family?' Whow! And while I applaud and respect
>>>>you for that, t sounds a wee-bit convoluted doncha' think? Nevertheless,
>>>>it's just your opinion on this subtle issue over the "toxics," the "suffering,"
>>>>and the "deaths" in Clark which you presume isn't worthy of a courtroom/justice,
>>>>and from a perspective that is quite tangential to say the least.
>>>Wake up!
>>Ooops. Touched a nerve with that one! Gotta' remember ...Gotta' remember : )
>>>Show me where I say that no trial should be held and I'll hail you
Really ...I'm more often than not probably snoring and 'dreaming' when
Letterman is on late at night, and evidently he still has a crush on
Connie Chung ...Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to Clark, the civil-suit,
toxic waste, etc. to say the least, yet the non-sequitur (Gee, I love
using that term when it comes to you), has been duly noted : )
>Yep. And since then I have gotten the information to answer those
>questions. So what's your point? You love to quote this (how many times
>each post) when it's old news. You gave me a number of links, others more,
>and some I discovered on my own. You apparently think that asking questions
>is something wrong; perhaps if you learned to ask questions you would learn
>more rapidly, too. I also asked what the exact nature of the contamination
>was, and got answers to that, too. Is that a crime, to ask questions? I
>explicitly said "I don't want to trivialize this" -- do you understand what
>that means? It means that people have died or gotten sick, that there are
>serious issues here, but some skepticism may be in order and I have some
>concerns that go beyond the surface of the issue. If one considers this an
>educational forum, not just a place to spout your particular brand of
>prejudice, philosophy or nationalism, then questions should be encouraged
>and answered if one has credible knowledge.
Yes, I agree, but your 'skepticism' was nothing more than sheer intolerance
or ignorance of whatever facts, and contentions were brought forth in regard
to Clark. You felt that the civil-suit filed wasn't was nothing more than
a bunch of Filipinos, "get in on a settlement," per your corallary to
toxic emission 'next to where live.' No. If it so important to you
that this be an "educational forum," with the exclusion or censorship of
my 'brand of' opinions, maybe perhaps SCF isn't for you - A moderated one
perhaps where you are the pontiff. OTOH - You've always been welcomed to
the exchange, yet when called upon to expand on a number of non-sequiturs,
or "asides" as you might call them, you have a fit. Anyway, that's water
under the bridge and on to the next fallacy.
I'm glad that that I've kept your piqued your interest.
Actually, and personally, I no longer live in the Bay Area, but let's cut to
the chase here shall we? And again. We were speaking in the context of
'toxics,' right?
Not Chevron, not Richmond, not where you live (hence the meandering
non-sequitur/fallacy), because we were talking about toxic emissions and
their effects of people IN the context of those in Clark ...Are you
following me so far? Don't go away.
Now, in a broad brush stroke you 'paint,' those in Clark as with those who
you deem there, or wherever you are, as out "get in on a settlement."
Still following me? And as an 'aside,' yes, I think I'm entitled to those,
I raised the issue over the facility in Avon -which- is not only in the same
county but "The town next to where you live," -which- I presumed was Avon
yet another industrial town within Contra Costa County.
Now, with regard to the 'point scoring,' and juxtapose it with your
"Life isn't about winning or losing for me .." it is nothing more than
a contradiction, and yes, a compositional fallacy. As for the 'racists'
suggestive inclination(s), you've punctuated something that was never
an issue until you yourself raised issue with it.
But, now you are cookin' It's not the 'complexity' per se, in and of
the situation, but the narrow approach you employ in addressing the
subject, which to a great degree is confusing, if not confounding. You
are quite up on the term "toxic waste," yes? You haphazardly equate it
with people, disingenous people at that, "to get in on a settlement."
In spite of the finding to date there in Clark with regard already
infirmed and or dying. Geez. Again, the refineries of Contra Costa
are thousands of miles from Clark, and a whole culture away ...Why
then the broad generalization and inference? A fallacy? No doubt
about it.
>Your entire analytical method is laid bare, with all of your arrogance,
>distortions, misunderstandings and preconceptions visible in one little
>exchange.
>Randy
Yeah, in light of this impassioned diatribe, and not that it matters
mind you, I'd just as soon 'assume' that at 2:00am this morning you
were posting from a dial-up in Fremont, and watching David Letterman
ogle Connie Chung, but then again I could be completely wrong in
that my 'psychic' powers might be a little rusty after such an
enlighting exchange ;-)
l8R
- Dominic
>>>>Of course those suffering in Clark are not worthy of such an "investigation," "legal
>>>>recourse," nor "venue" until -ALL- the facts are in, right? Again, I'm simply alluding
>>>>and getting a better understanding of your non-sequitur above.
>>>Gee, Dom, you're right. I don't think anything should be done. Ignore
>>>everything that I've said to the contrary, you were able to see right
>>>through my superficial words to my real meaning. (FYI -- that's
>>>"sarcasm" -- look it up if you have any questions).
>>>Randy
>>Hehehehe ...I suppose there's a smidgen of truth in there somewhere, I 'guess' <g>
// end
Joekerr
return to the thread....
I'd suggest you look at Iwon.com... world news section re: agent orange
either yesterday or today.... it appears there may be international
laws/agreements that prevent forcing the govt to clean up. (at least
directly)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tansong Isda
> "Tansong Isda" <ta...@hindiginto.ito> wrote in message
> news:39890AB7...@hindiginto.ito...
> > Bastos Kano wrote:
> >
> >
> > After WW2, he just stayed. He had a live-in girlfriend <she abandoned him
> with
> > two girls> went to school and became an artist, met my mother and they
> married,
> > I was born two years later (1953). I don't know what type of connection he
> has
> > with the service (I know that he was w/Army corps of engineers) but he
> didn't
> > retire, but he also didn't get any money from them except when he died.
>
> Interesting family history. So, as I say to my sister, you're MUCH older
> than I am (I was born in '55)! ; )
>
> >
> > This fear of getting this "Anti-American" that you have used as if
> whatever(I am
> > trying to identify...) fear is being awakened in you. You know this fear
> better
> > than I would, because I don't have this fear, I don't understand how a
> lawsuit
> > filed can be an anti-American "statement?".
>
> I still don't understand what you are referring to when you talk about
> "fear" here, but that's OK. Maybe it's how we define "fear". I am neither
> afraid of not being accepted as Filipino (since I'm not...) nor am I afraid
> of how anti-American sentiment affects me or my country (at least when it
> involves Filipinos). I actually believe the anti-American sentiment hurts
> Filipinos, both in the US and in the RP, more than it does US citizens.
> There are things the Philippines needs from the US (just as there are things
> they do not), and prejudice of any kind can keep you from accepting or
> adopting what is needed.
>
> Randy
OK, we have lost it......so....
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:42:07 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Agreed. Both sides have their agendas. One, I fear, is heavily influenced
> >by the anti-American (or at least anti-US military) perspective, while the
> >other is trying to minimize financial responsibility (although I'm not sure
> >where the RP CDC fits in). One cannot believe either's statements on the
> >face of it.
Why is there a fear that it is nothing but an anti-American, isn't it possible
that people just want what is right? Any American would insist on the same, why
is it not possible for a Filipino to seek it?
What is your fear? Why do you fear that it might be nothing but an anti-American
sentiment and not justice? I am trying to define it, if there is no real fear,
then could it be that Pinoys aren't capable of seeking justice? It is difficult
to get one from the Philippine law makers, then why not straight through the US
justice system? Ever thought that it just might be a better move?
Well, I do think that this is a good move, one: it forces the US govt. to answer
and move the legal venues to the US.
Bastos Kano
Bastos Kano
Normally, your responses are a little more insightful and go beyond the
surface. I believe you do your professors an injustice here. Let's look at
what you are applauding:
Dom said:
And who are 'you,' if anyone for that fact to say that their case is not
valid? Are you proposing that the plaintiffs simply drop this case, without
compensation, nor aid in spite of what has been learned to date regarding
their health and welfare because you allege (from personal experience in
the US) that they will get "little or nothing?" A bunch of assumptions,
but let's deal with them one by one shall we?
My Response:
I have always maintained (as you have apparently concurred from your posts
on the subject) that a civil suit is neither appropriate, necessary or the
best way of getting the issues addressed and dealt with.
Dom said:
1. We aren't talking about medical malpractice here
My Response:
No, but there are many legal similarities. My stated concerns from the
beginning were with the chain of evidence demonstrating the connection
between the toxics and the reported physical symptoms. In a medical
malpractice suit, plaintiffs must demonstrate a direct causal connection
between the medical practice and the outcome. In this case, the plaintiffs
must demonstrate a causal connection between the undeniable presense of
toxics (I believe this has been acknowledged since before the US pullout
from what I have read here) and the deaths and medical symptoms of the
victims. The plaintiffs in this case have established a monetary demand for
what they have suffered, just as a medical malpractice plaintiff would.
Such a figure theoretically represents a valuation on the lives lost, the
pain and suffering endured, etc. This phase of the award is not intended to
be punitive but restitution or recompense; punitive damages are a separate
judgement.
Malpractice was brought into the issue to question the dollar amount of the
suit in terms of a valuation on the loss, pain and suffering involved. I
never said that this was a case of medical malpractice, and Dom snags that
out of context to make his point. If you read my paragraph where I discuss
medical malpractice, you see that my concern is with his use of the term
"care and assistance" for the victims, and my questioning the sheer size of
the demand. I postulate that it may be an attempt to broker a "nuisance
settlement" in a case the lawyers have neither the resources not the
intention of pursuing to trial. This is standard practice, at least here in
the US, as I'm sure your legal professors will attest to.
Dom said:
2. We are talking about how the US government/military left behind
toxics which were ascertained accordingly
My Response:
Not really. *I* was talking about how certain people are attempting to sue
sovereign governments in civil court over alleged consequences. Again, the
issue of whether there are toxics has not been debated here (I asked
questions about the nature of the problem, which Dom interpreted as meaning
I did not believe they existed -- as a journalist, you surely appreciate the
value of questions, even leading questions), so this point is a non-issue
and attempts to reformulate the debate along lines of the existence of
toxics all agree exist. I was talking about the size of the demand,
wondering whether a reasonable causal chain had been established, and
wondering where the reported symptoms fit into the overall health situation
of the region.
Dom said:
3. We are talking about how the US government and the RP government
were negligent and inept in addressing this problem early on
My Response:
Not really, at least I wasn't. Again, since I cannot know the details of
the negotiations before, during or after the US withdrawal, I obviously
cannot reach a judgement as to a) what the extent of the problem was at the
time of withdrawal, b) what the respective governments knew of the
situation, c) what was proposed, countered, rejected, etc., and d) how
negligent any of the involved parties are. I was talking about specific
things -- the nature of the suit, the amount of damages, the evidence
reported and the type of investigation being made to establish the claims,
and whether the victims would recieve a reasonable settlement even if the
suit could be tried.
Dom Said:
4. We are talking about how it was learned that certain heath risks
and dangers were the result, or end product of these findings
My Response:
No, we aren't. We are talking about how some people here *assume* that
health risks were the result. I had pointed out that health risks are
involved in many environments. I pointed out that there was testimony on
both sides, from quotes Dom provided me. Not to prove any side difinitely,
but to interject some sense that this was not an open-and-shut case. In
many cases like these, it boils down to experts testifying on both sides to
opposite findings. This is one reason we don't try people in the press,
where the agenda of the publication or author inform what evidence is
invoked, and where there is no chance for rebuttal.
Dom Said:
5. We are talking about how people had died, and or are suffering
and that they are seeking compensation
My Response:
People have died and are suffering, but whether these are due to the toxics
on base or other factors has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction from
the conflicting reports here. I also cannot discount the evidence presented
by US military who were on site and point out how these same toxics were
present during the US occupation of the bases and did not seem to cause
these horrible effects. One cannot simply dismiss evidence that does not
fit with your conclusions or beliefs.
Dom Said:
Now how difficult is that to fathom without sending and filling this
exchange non-sequitur-filled-hyperboles? Again, this is not about
what had happened in 'your' case with regard to your kin, yet it
is somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Yes, Philippine law 'tends
to follow the US,' in it's precedence and juris prudence, but again
in this case, and the one you've cited are as similar, as they are
dissimilar in that you are dealing with two-sovereign nations, which
are defendants in a case against a number of people (Filipino) who
are seeking compensation for their sufferage - Not a civil suit, by
a single plaintiff, nor in the US. Moreover, it's a mistake to
correllate the two in attempting to establish a reasonable position
in contention, since again this case is in the RP.
My Response:
One point we have come to agreement on subsequently is that this IS a civil
suit, lodged in the RP against two sovereign nations (although he denies it
here -- but then, he refers to it as a civil suit later in this same post).
Dom distorts my use of US cases by saying I claim they are similar, when in
reality I am clearly using them as examples of specific elements, i.e., the
establishment of a reasonable demand in the malpractice case, and the
necessity of making a clear causal connection between the toxics, actions of
the RPG and USG, and the reported deaths and symptoms. Two items need not
be indentical to have points in common which illuminate each other.
Dom said:
Well your comment below surely suggested it:
o "These have to be viewed within the sample population to determine
whether
there is any indication that these deaths are out of the expected range
of such occurances. [Everybody who has lived there will die] is a true
statement, but not an actionable one ..."
Yet, permit me to expand on this by adding that you did in fact read the
articles I offered to bring you up to speed on this issue, but with regard
to this ...Well, shall I say it does indeed capture the crux of your opinion
in and of this case?
My Response:
He is saying that my concern about establishing that these reported deaths
and symptoms are not within the norm for the regional population "capture
the crux of your opinion in and of this case." Is a call for the
establishment of facts out of line? Is determining whether the toxics are
truly the cause of the cited problems not relevent? Does my saying we
should establish the correlation before passing judgement mean that I am not
sympathetic to the people involved at Clark?
Dom Said:
Your brush is getting bigger, and I'm not going 'detract' in the way of
my position in this matter, by going into some tangental opinion regarding
the Gulf War and the allegations put forth by the soldier who, might I
say had their day-in-court and before a Congressional panel; Which of
course it appears that you would want nothing of the sort with regard
to these Filipinos in Clark to have. BTW - With regard to the semantics
and the hyperbole regarding the term 'toxic,' there are without doubt
levels of toxicity all around us. Some are minimal, some are just downright
deadly. Now, is it your position that the EPA do away with such warnings,
since you feel that people are just "paranoid" by nature. Moreover,
would you put a motion to the legislature in CA, or even in Washington,
District of Con-Men, for a referendum in the repeal of the warning labels
on cigarattes or on trucks carrying hazardous nuclear waste ...Say, down
I-880, or allowing them to pass through residential neigborhoods?
Hmmm.
My Response:
Dom takes my pointing out that we live in an increasingly toxic world and
turns it on end to suggest that I think these are not problems and we should
do away with any safety concerns. He missed my point, possibly
deliberately, that we are surrounded by different levels of toxicity, and
just because toxics exist does not mean we are exposed to them at levels
where they can do harm. Again, you must first prove a causal relationship,
which is supported by a claim of proximity but not established by one.
Living next to a restaurant that serves tainted food will not affect me
unless I eat there. There still appears to be some confusion in the reports
as to where samples were taken from wells and where the potable water was
really drawn from.
Dom said:
I agree with the 'non-rush to judgement,' yet the feeling I get in that
you believe that this class-action suit against both the RP and US gov't
of and for the people who have suffered in Clark is not valid - And now
you somewhat attach a price of those who have died as a result of this
faux pas.
My response:
Dom clearly assumes -- before trial -- that the causal relationship has been
demonstrated. He has convicted the governments of two countries without
benefit of trial. What would your law professors have to say about that?
Dom Said:
> Interesting analogy, in trying to paint the Filipino-people there
> as simians (ie. monkeys), it does not inject humor but a only
> serves to enrage those who are not privy to one's morbid
> sense of humor in light of disaster that was Pinatubo and the
> deaths in Clark, nor the suggestion that life in the Philippines,
> and in the context of this tragedy some cartoon to be ridiculed.
And I responded
>Oh, please! You are smart enough to know that is not what I said or meant.
Oh?
My Response:
Dom is clearly trying to distort my position to paint me as some ugly
American racist slinging insults at the Filipino people. If I said, "It's
like a ballerina with bloody toe shoes", would I be saying that Filipinos
are like ballerinas (or maybe like toes)? Obviously not. I am aware of
some of the racial epithets used by Westerners to refer to Filipinos (I
believe DSP reminded us here of a John Wayne movie from the 40s where he
sang "The monkeys in Zamboanga have no tails"). The use of the Tarzan
illustration was to show that people have a certain degree of responsibility
to protect themselves and not let others beat them up. This came up in the
context of the report Dom gave me that many people at the CAPCOM center
refused to leave years after they had first reported the possibility of
contamination. There are circumstances where the liability cannot be
transferred even in part to the victims, as in addiction cases or spousal
abuse cases where the spouse is fearful of removing herself from the abusive
relationship (and no, I'm not saying these "are like" the Clark case; they
are examples of when a victim can be legally excused for not taking steps to
remove themselves from harms way). I do not believe, nor do I believe a
court would allow, that wanting to keep your children in the same school
would qualify as a legimitate reason to continue to expose yourself and your
children to perceived deadly harm.
Dom said:
>Show me where I have once said the USG was above consideration in this
>negligence. "Didn't happen." Just because I am against railroading the
USG
>or RPG does not mean I find them without fault.
Your opposition (please consider the verbiage of your rebuts in this
exchange)
both comical and aloof, to having this trial held suggests it.
My Response:
Dom's distortions of my position do not reflect my position. If I
continually state a position, and he continues to say "You really don't mean
that, you mean the opposite", it does not mean I am lying. It means he is
distorting my position, deliberately or unintentionally, to make me look
bad.
Dom Said:
(Life in the Philippines is) more like a Three Stooges schtick : )
My Response:
If I use an analogy, I get called a racist and am told it reflects more
accurately on my position than my position statements themselves. When Dom
makes humorous but derogatory statements about the Philippines, it's ok
because he is Pinoy and living in the US. Had I made that statement, he
would have accused me of saying that Filipinos are stupid, corrupt, clumsy,
violent, etc. I'm sure he did not mean those things, but had I said it...
Dom said:
however, when a mistake, oversight, goof or whatever you call it, when
it comes to Filipino-lives is had, would one be inclined to address it
immediately as opposed to waiting till the deformities, and infirmed
are paraded before the press and government to see? No, Bastos - "Life
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and Equal Justice For All" are
part of the American lexicon, but when it comes to addressing a
'responsibility' in 'coming to bat,' this just doesn't apply to the
Filipino who is pursuing this.
My Response:
Again, Dom assumes a) that nothing was proposed by the US or RPG early on,
b) that no steps were taken (when we know at least that the RPG tried to
evacuate the refugees), c) international politics played no role in
determining how the Clark cleanup was handled, and d) this kind of thing
would not have happened in the US. How would your international law and
political science profs read that? This oversimplifies the issue so
horribly that he would have had his paper returned ungraded to save him
embarassment.
Dom Said:
Perhaps you got carried away when you shared this 'fallacy' in and of
an analogy:
o " The town next to where I live in CA has a big Chevron refinery.
Every few years, they have an "oops" and discharge the wrong kind
of emissions. Instantly thousands of residents go to local hospitals
and stand in line for hours for "treatment" so they can get in on
a settlement ..."
When in fact there were two mishaps within a year in Richmond, which you
did indeed paint with a very broad-brush? And being from that 'town
where you live next to,' I know of how potentially hazardous those
fires/discharges were ...With regard to 'toxicity' that is. Yet, you
went on to share that you are 'next' to it suggesting that there is
nothing wrong with taking a gulp of airborne chemicals, or for that
fact having one's kids play next to an oil refinery engulfed in
flames. Yes ...Your 'fallacy,' and non-sequitur has been duly noted.
My Response:
As I have detailed in other posts, he was completely wrong in his changing
my reference to another completely different site with a different history.
He was so intent on "showing me up" that he ignored what I wrote to state
what he "thought I meant" (i.e., not the Chevron refinery but the Tosco
refinery). That's like my saying, "In Sweden, there have been few civil
rights abuses in the past century" and him saying, "How can you say all the
horrible things Germany did 60 years ago constitute "few civil rights
abuses"?" What makes this all the more telling of his arrogance and lack of
intellectual integrity is that he STILL refuses to acknowledge his mistake.
How would your professoirs mark that (I see more sitting down at this
point).
Dom Said:
No, you've been interesting. Your reasoning is what makes this all worth
while, as well as mine, which to some degree can be confusing. But let me
share with you what a "non-sequitur" is:
" An argument with very weak or illogical support. Also, a
contradictory claim ..."
With emphasis on contradiction ...And heck, I'm not above tossing
non-sequiturs myself, unless provoked op 'cors ;-)
My response:
Websters defines non sequitur as:
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a
fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative
proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything
previously said
Dom attacks not my premises but his interpretation of my observations. He
states that my continued call for fact-finding and the clear establishment
of a causal chain between toxics and reported conditions indicates that I am
against these Filipinos getting what they deserve. THAT is a non sequitur,
certainly. All of his distortions of my statements into things I do not
believe nor never said qualify as non sequiturs much more than my
statements. Does stating that the causal chain has not been proven
constitute a non sequitur? Does stating that a better venue should be (and
possibly has been) found constitute a non sequitur? Does stating that in
refusing to leave the CAPCOM site the victims share some measure, however
small, of responsibility for health problems that developed after their
refusal constitute a non sequitur? Does questioning how much money these
victims will get even if they receive a judgement constitute a non sequitur?
I see your debate coach has sat back down.
Dom Said:
Be that as it may, and quite eloquently put I might add ...It doesn't mean
that thes Filipinos shouldn't have their day in court, and in upholding an
American legal tenet: "Innocent until proven guilty."
My Response:
Dom has it backwards here. The plaintiffs are in the legal position of
proving the USG and RPG guilty, not the other way around. It is the USG and
RPG who are "innocent until proven guilty." And as often as I have said
that I believe this must be adjudicated, just not in a civil court with
questionable jurisdiction and no power to collect any awards, for him to
state that I am saying they should not have their day in court is an
outright distortion.
Perhaps you should reconsider you words of support below. Or was something
more than objective evaluation at work here in your analysis of a Pinoy and
Kano debating?
Randy
"soc.culture.filipino" <pusongpino...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:053a541c...@usw-ex0109-069.remarq.com...
Bastos Kano
>
> Interesting fable you've weaved here, Bastos but then again you were
> 'excited,' 'insolent,' and completely 'misjudged' what you were getting
> into when you spouted what you did upon entry to the exchange.
Furthermore,
> and if you would please refer to your previous declaration/definition
above,
> t'was you who alluded to the 'racial connection,' in coining a term
synonymous
> with such people. I OTOH sought to underscore your 'intolerance' to the
> matter over Clark by citing your immortal words. Nevertheless, I cannot
> fault you for invoking and taking the 'racial' tact, since it has been
> established that this means a lot to you. But we'll get to this later -
Of
> course with your non-sequitur above, notwithstanding in a feeble attempt
to
> correlate my reply to your "stepmother who had such a twisted and warped
> mind." Again, I find it fascinating what more we can learn as this who
> thread progresses and unfolds : )
So you have me "'excited,' 'insolent,' and completely 'misjudged' what you
were getting
> into when you spouted what you did upon entry to the exchange." Sigh.
You continue to quote back volumes you either intentionally or
unintentionally distort. Ah, to be under 25 and so certain in all things
again!
I have NEVER brought up race here. It really isn't an issue to me, as I
have taken pains to explain. Any differences between the US and the RP are
cultural, historical, environmental, etc., not racial. The fact that you
keep bringing race into this (while maintaining *I* brought it up -- SHOW ME
THE EXACT QUOTE!) makes me believe that race is a big issue with you and you
feel it has the same significance to all. Perhaps you feel you have been
discriminated against in the US, a distinct possibility. But not by me.
Don't paint me with that brush.
Sorry about that, buddy, but in my world race and ethnicity are too diverse
to be an issue. You take a handful of US currency, and you will note that
the color and size of the bill does not affect its value. If race were an
issue with me, I would never have married my wife without a thought to how
others would see us. While I have always referred to myself as the "token
white boy" in the family and my wife as my "golden goddess", I never thought
about it until someone whose son is married to a black woman said, "You
understand, you are in a mixed marriage." The thing is I *don't*
understand. I don't think about it. Sure, the cultural differences are
there, but that has nothing to do with race, it has to do with culture and
economic background and religious training and a host of other factors.
>
> Oh come now, Bastos I'm pretty sure it was a 'witch hunt' in your mind.
Heck,
> or else why would you ever spout it? "Is this a witch hunt?" you asked,
and
> for which was the first thing that entered you mind, and an opinion
pre-conceived
> and formulated based upon the 'intolerance,' opposition to the
civil-trial,
> or even ignorance over this matter in Clark.
Dom, you simply cannot distort everything you read to fit into your
prejudices and presuppositions. It obviously wasn't the first thing that
came to mind because I didn't mention it in my first post. By using such a
rhetorical question I wanted to point out that all rushes to judgement where
people feel they "know" the facts are not just.
You sieze upon little items out of context and beat them bloody in post
after post. I'm sorry you are so ashamed of the Philippines and Filipinos
that you think they are no better than the Three Stooges -- that is a sad
commentary on your own uncalled for feelings of inferiority and insecurity,
but I assure you that even though you feel this way it is not true.
Contrary to your stated position, the Philippines is not some slapstick
country populated by corrupt, stupid and violent fools. I can understand a
bit better why you are so quick to assume that others judge the Philippines
because of your own feelings about it and Filipinos.
Now, was the above accurate? Want me to repeat it in the next few posts,
dismissing your rebuttal that that does not represent your true feelings,
that you were using a humourous allusion? Want me to dismiss everything
else you have ever said in your life to hang you in perpetuity for that one
statement? Unfair? Of course. Distortion of your true feelings? Yes.
Exactly what you do to me in every post? Soitenly.
Furthermore, please, do note
> that I've sub-scribed to keeping your meanderings and my points raised in
a more
> readable format since you habitually like cutting into my rebuts ...Or do
you
> usually do that in your conversation with others, when confronted with
matters
> that are beyond you and your tolerance.
Your insults are so... sophomoric. Yet I believe you *have* graduated from
college. Your idea of debate is to insult your opponent, call him names,
and tell him what he is really thinking. Wow. What a technique.
Moreover, I've no problem with your
> strict-denial, and if you feel that by 'defining' my rebuts, however you
deem
> fit would theraputically benefit you, by all means do so.
Denial? What am I denying? That I'm racist? That I hate Filipinos? That
I don't think those people in Clark should have their cases examined and
adjudicated? All of these things you claim I am in denial about are simply
not true. Listen closely -- if I don't actually believe or state it, it
doesn't mean I really believe it. When you distort things I say to fit your
own agenda and ideas on what I *really* think, it is an exercise in your
mind, not a reflection of reality. We're not talking about my denial, we're
talking about your delusions.
> Now we are getting to the core of this, and it's about time. Follow me
closely
> now Bastos. You suggested, and deduced that before any action be taken on
> Clark that some 'causal relationship' be established. Fair enough.
Glad you finally see that I am not saying that no problems exist, that the
USG is blameless, that there are no toxics, that I do not want to see the
people in court or compensated -- all things you have claimed in prior
posts. You're getting there, babe! In fact, that's just about my whole
platform in this thread, which you are now stipulating. The end is in
sight.
> Yet, by the same token -is- the basis of your opposition to the suit filed
by the
> Plaintiffs against the RP and US gov'ts. Diba?
No. Read my furry pink lips. IT IS THE WRONG VENUE. As I have said how
many times before?
> Furthermore, I'm glad to see
> that your 'perception' in this matter has been clarified, and not so much
for
> my benefit, but for your own which you continually fail to grasp.
Moreover,
> since it's now been established as a "fact" that you 'oppose' this, but
we'll
> address this further and later in this thread which I've already alluded
to
> but apparently missed (eg. grass-roots, non-government and independent
> investigation).
You know more about my thinking than I do -- I "fail to grasp" my own
perception? Can you be more rediculous than that. Maybe, just maybe, if
what I say does not match what you think I mean, YOU are misunderstanding
me! Wow, what a concept. You might be letting your preconceptions, your
biases, your insecurities and your pride actually affect how you interpret
things I say.
>
> I believe the use of this term rubs you a certain way, eh Bastos? Heck, I
> think I offered a definition (ie. fallacy) as to what a 'non-sequitur' is,
> yet as with the rest of this exchange selectively ignored it.
And when I defined "fallacy" and asked you to point out specific examples,
you failed many times to respond. You cannot just say, over and over and
over and over again, that what I say is fallacious non sequiturs without
being specific. And being specific doesn't mean, "well you said this, but I
really know you meant just the opposite, which is a fallacy."
Sure, the term rubs me the wrong way. Don't insults, unfair and oft
repeated, irritate you? Should I just say, "You're right, Dom, your
distortions of what I say and your lack of reasoning ability means that I am
spouting fallacies." If I call you a liar often enough, will you take
umbrage? If I say you are stupid, or illogical, or racist, or callous,
often enough, will you just laugh it off? Your posts are filled with
insults that you would never say to my face, and you are able to get away
with wild logical absurdities which you could never try in real life. How
should I take "I like you, I really do. You are stupid (try to follow me
here, Randy), you lie, you distort, you are a racist, you have no reasoning
ability, you are a typical American colonialist, but don't take it
personally, OK?"
Sheesh.
> And the manner in which you rave ad infinitum, in opposition to me
> employing this term in
> the course of our debate/exchange is quite apparent in that you fail to
> see just where your own short-comings lay.
By your definition, Dom. You claim I *really* mean and believe many things
that I do not, and then say I fail to acknowledge my shortcomings when I
deny your absurd distortions. Among so many things I resent and deny, you
claim I am a racist. I was involved in the civil rights movement before you
were born. Should I just say, "Well, Dom say's I'm a racist, so I must be."
Right.
But I'm not one to criticize
> how you wish to define, in what you perceive to be my interpretations of
> the terms I use, yet it does illustrate to what degree you are unwilling
> to accept the fallacies and irrelevant "parables" you toss into this.
> Nevertheless, it does however, shed more light as to where you are
> coming from, and however limited it may be.
Just because what I say does not match what you think I believe does not
mean I am dissembling. It means you are not that bright.
>
> Oh, now you were "specific in your witch hunt quip," eh? Whow. And when
> you spoke volumes how it wasn't 'perceived' in the manner in which you
> conveyed it, huh? Now tell me this, did you enter this thread with an
> "open mind?" Of course not, and permit me to illustrate once again, just
> how objective you were in your assessment of this matter in Clark:
Dom -- read this carefully. When I entered this thread, I had many
questions, which I asked. I got many answers. Does that mean you must
refer back to my first posts every time? That's ancient history. The fact
that you have to keep bringing it up means YOU HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD, and
my evolved position, which I have always admitted is better informed and
more clear now, does not satisfy your desire to put me down. You have
stipulated above that you say my concerns were fair -- yet you continue to
insult and pull up old posts out of context saying, "Yes, but why did you
say this?" Why are you so obsessed with me? Is it because mny wife is
better looking than yours? That I make more money than you? That you
somehow feel inferior to me for whatever reason so you need to tear me down?
I'm too big a shed for you to do that, son.
> Your 'fallacies' are strewn throughout this thread, but given your sense
> of strict-denial, I'm not the least bit surprised that you are able to
> identify them, and we'll get to the Tosco, Chevron, toxic thingy in
> good time here, as well as your 'fallacies' in raising issues, what
> you term "asides," which I deem "non-sequiturs" with regard to race,
> religion, your family, etc. etc. ad infintum. But this is not as 'time
> consuming' as you might believe, Bastos. A little 'timing,'
time-management,
> tolerance and a whole lot of patience is what is required, which evidently
> you lack and have demonstrated accordingly.
So demonstrate ONE fallacy. Just ONE.
And it is time consuming to me to have to rehash this. At the speed I type,
it takes a long time to respond. What that has to do with tolerance and
patience ...oh, I see, just another childish scchoolboy insult. Got it.
>
> Freudian slip. But I'll give you the benefit of running that 'one' by you
> again, given your opposition to a civil-trial it could be presumed that
> no criminal charges will be pursued. Moreover, and since you raised the
> OJ Simpson trial, didn't a civil case follow the criminal? Isn't a
> civil-trial (venue) usually a last ditch course of action by plaintiffs
> when felt that justice in their case was not served? Why not a criminal
> trial? Shucks, early on you sought to dismiss the civil-trial altogether
> since alluding to the suit as a "witch hunt."
Show me what other legal steps have been taken. Is this a "last ditch"
effort? Your injection of the Simpson trial is a non sequitur and
misleading. When was the criminal trial here, and what were the results?
Lousy argument, Dom.
And where does it follow that since I am against a civil trial I am against
any other? That is YOU presumption, and once again you are dead wrong. I
would like to see criminal trials over this NO MATTER WHETHER THERE IS A
DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE TOXICS AND CLARK. I think any entity that fails to
clean up toxics should face criminal proceedings, as well as any who aid and
abet those who pollute. One real problem I see with the civil suit is that,
as I understand it, it does nothing to compell the guilty parties to clean
up the mess, which is a profound concern.
>
> Twenty-five years as a realtor and priest, I'm impressed : )
Typical Dom Distortion. Never said I was a realtor, but I've been buiying,
selling and renting commercial properties for 25 years. Geez, Dom, you
don't even try to read what I write. It just all goes in your overheated
processor to be distorted along lines you feel make me look bad.
> Stick to the 'context' and focus here please. This isn't about what you
> did for 25 years - And in thinking that you were some sort of preacher
> for the most part of your life, and now for a greater part a realtor
> doesn't really address the point of order, and which you conceded
> in:
Again, Dom Distortion time. Quote back how long I was a preacher. Never
said it (at least not in this thread). You see, you can't put fingers to
keyboard without distorting what I've said. I say I was a preacher, you say
I was one for the most part of my life. See any difference there? Your
wild assumptions make a conversation impossible. And as far as denial, your
failure to accept and acknowledge that you make these distortions put you in
a running with Cleopatra for Queen of Denial.
> " When JT tells me I am out in left field, I have to sit
> up -- if *JT* thinks that, I'd better think about it!
> That cautions me that it may be too late in the night for
> me to be posting coherently. Sometimes my arguments get
> off track, or I stretch a point (perhaps to the point of
> rediculousness), or I say an inappropriate thing ..."
I have no need to debate with JT. I find him an intelligent and
entertaining fellow who is not afraid to say what he means in the face of
determined opposition. The above was my attempt to humourously extricate
myself froma thread that I saw no positive experience for me in (think: all
of Dom's insults, lies and distortions and the sleep they've cost me in
replies). You will find that at times I refer to myself as stupid, although
I'm not, lazy, although I'm not, etc. I believe you cut out the obviously
hyperbolic reference to drugs and cough syrup (a line I use from Bill
Murray's "Stripes" movie a lot, although I don't do drugs or drink).
> Aw shucks. I went and did it again : ) The 'bottom line' here is that
you
> presented a non-sequitur, if not blatantly false assumption and now you
> are indeed 'weaseling.' Yes, of course those bases are 'gold mines,' but
> your declaration that the RP re-compensates the US (over this matter in
> Clark no less) for the 'improvements made,' per the lease, rent or
whatever
> one sees fit, is a not valid declaration ...It's a weak and faulty rebut.
Just because you believe that the "gold mine" of the bases should be
uncompensated and unappreciated does not mean I believe so. If I believe
that there should be some cooperation between those who receive the benefits
of the bases (whether private companies or the RPG) and the US, it is not a
non sequitur nor a fallacy. Whether it is legally, economically or
realistically feasible is not at issue, nor do the difficulties posed by
those factors make my opinion fallacious.
> But you've dropped JT's name on this thread so much I'm wondering what
> he has to do with the 'Toxics In Clark?'
You mean as an expat Pinoy like yourself? I believe I've mentioned him once
or twice here -- do you consider that alot? They were appropriate places.
I've mentioned PP2 more often, does that mean anything?
> But yeah, you munged your words together so well, that even this could be
> never, ever be misconstrued, eh? C'mon, you know full well of what you
> suggested, and if I said it before, I'll say it again ...It's an
> 'affront' to any self-respecting Filipino. And please, take exceptional
> note of the emphatic certainty of your quote above IN the 'context' and
> 'temperature' of our exchange, Bastos. It was indeed 'telling.'
If you agree with my facts, do not say it is falllacious. If you believe
that these facts reflect poorly upon the Filipino people, that is your call.
I was pointing out an irony, which you called a non sequitur and fallacy.
Now you agree it was not fallacious. Bit by bit I'm forcing you into
retracting your false claims and insults, but then you spin away and say,
"Well, the way you said it was insulting." Is there a way to say that life
is cheap in the RP, or that corruption often overrides other values, without
being insulting? If there is to be positive change in the RP, there has to
be honest acceptance of the pros and cons of the culture without people
getting hostile and defensive.
>
> So be it. And I still believe it might have been ROFL hilarious if one
had
> been there, and who knew you personally and of the circumstances around
> this get together.
We've agreed on this weeks ago. Why do you keep wasting badnwidth on it?
> Reference? You want references? Let's take all of your quotes that I've
> cited, put them all together, and start all over again! Whaddya say?
Let's
> parse them accordingly and scuttle what we've established to this point
and get
> to the 'negligence' in and of them. Okey?
In other words, you can't come up with anything concrete. That's been your
tactic all along.
>
> Well, coining the psuedo "Bastos Kano" does stir images and does play upon
> the imagination of many Filipinos in, for the most part, a Filipino-forum,
> would 'stir people up,' wouldn't you say?
You speak for all Filipinos here quite easily. I, however, don't believe
you speak for a majority or I wouldn't waste my time here. Funny how you
are the first in 8 months to say there is something about my handle that
would "stir people up." Saying that is does, my friend, is a fallacy.
> Sure you are a 'pussy cat,' (funny someone mentioned
> that to me earlier this week), but one wouldn't go around tossing blood-
> dripping meat in a den of tigers, or cut oneself open with a knife in
> a school of sharks, wot?
OK, here's a flash. To protect yourself from flames -- DON'T LOG ON! Why
should I be afraid of flames? A flame is simply a caustic verbal insult
message, which has no real physical presence in the world. You can filter
it or read it and laugh. Dom, IT'S NOT REAL LIFE! It doesn't affect your
family, or your work, or your physical safety. It's a social interaction,
one out of (hopefully) many you have. IF I WAS SO DISRESPECTED OR SO
DISRESPECTFUL OF THIS GROUP THAT I GOT FLAMED, WHY WOULD I WANT TO BE HERE?
I believe it was you who said that a planned get together was cancelled
because someone planned real violence -- ever heard of email to arrange
things between trusted friends? Cancel a get together because you only make
plans on a public forum? Hello!
> I thought I'd never get the opportunity to share with you that I know
first
> hand of how those bases are being utilized. I go back there as frequently
> as possible (it goes without saying I've many ties/kin there) and one'd be
> impressed as to what is being done with them, especially in the way of
> constructing new mfg. facilities, to the repaving and maintenance done
> to the airfield at the former CUBI NAS in Subic. The work at the SBMA and
> Clark, and since the time those you have 'talked to' in '95, '96 has been
> slow but progressing, but it is 'happening.' Furthermore, these bases, or
> 'freeports' as they are called are keys to the Philippines economic growth
> in Southeast Asia, which to a great extent, and which I alluded to very
early
> in this thread, is attributed to & thanks to U.S. military - But this
doesn't
> exonerate them, nor the RP gov't for that matter in their responsibility
to
> those who have died and suffered at Clark, and possibly other former US
> military sites in the Philippines.
A whole paragraph that I can enjoy and agree with. Good info to know.
> Heck, priests, preachers et. al. do indeed 'pontificate,' they
> 'meander' and are not above 'fallacies and non-sequiturs,' too,
> but in the context of this exchange between you and I, it's indeed
> fitting, has this thread cause you to take irreversable leave of
> your sense of humor? B^)
Funny. You criticize my sense of humor, then ask me why I can't take the
things you write in jest in the tone they are intended. You have spent
thousands of words telling me how my tone overwhelms my content, then you
want me to ignore your tone. You insult me continually, then say,
"Wassamata, Bastus, can't you take a joke?"
> "Has no relevance to your stated position?" what's it doing there then?
That, I admit, was a trap I knew you would walk into. The WORDING of an
illustration does not equate to the argument the illustration supports. The
words of an illustration do not necesarilly reflect the issues; if I told a
story about a man with a wooden leg in connection with a discussion of the
dangers to California wine growers of a certain pest, the wooden leg would
have no relevence to the wine growers, but is self-referential to the story.
You, on the other hand, would say that I am claiming all wine growers have
wooden legs, and how can I spout such fallacies?
> >Finally, why not admit you made a mistake? Why try to turn it into me
lying
> >when you are the one who blew it?
>
> Actually, and personally, I no longer live in the Bay Area, but let's cut
to
> the chase here shall we? And again. We were speaking in the context of
> 'toxics,' right?
>
> Not Chevron, not Richmond, not where you live (hence the meandering
> non-sequitur/fallacy), because we were talking about toxic emissions and
> their effects of people IN the context of those in Clark ...Are you
> following me so far? Don't go away.
So you dismiss your attack on me saying I was lying about the nature and
degree of the problems at the refinery I mentioned (why is it you didn't
quote back THAT little exchange, eh? The one that shows you were 100% wrong
in your "understanding" of my illustration? I wonder...")
If you read the context I brought up the refinery in, you will see that I am
stating that I have experienced people who have made claims in civil
litigation of medical symptoms that were fraudulent. I made no claims as to
whether fraud was involved in the Clark case, but use the illustration to
show that I have seen cases where people take advantage of a very real
situation for their own gain. You feel that no skepticism should be in mind
when thinking of the Clark lawsuit, but you aren't thinking like someone who
has ever had liability for anything. I prefaced the paragraph with "What
evidence is there that the 2 cases of heart disease which are cited in these
discussions were related to toxics?" This is a theme which I have
maintained thoughout this discussion (and which you are beginning to accede
is correct).
> Now, in a broad brush stroke you 'paint,' those in Clark as with those who
> you deem there, or wherever you are, as out "get in on a settlement."
> Still following me? And as an 'aside,' yes, I think I'm entitled to
those,
> I raised the issue over the facility in Avon -which- is not only in the
same
> county but "The town next to where you live," -which- I presumed was Avon
> yet another industrial town within Contra Costa County.
Sometimes your English is very hard to follow, but you do much better than I
could with Tagalog so I shouldn't complain. trying to make sense out of the
above paragraph: I never said those in Clark were out to get a settlement
"they did not deserve". You have to add the last, because that is what the
illustrations about Chevron and the Safeway warehouse (the second
illustration you ignored -- why? Because you thought you had caught me in a
factual mistatement about the Tosco refinery when I was clearly referring to
Chevron). People sometimes take advantage of a situation to add themselves
to the rolls of the truly injured in order to get compensation. Maybe this
only happens in the US, but with all I have seen personally and all I read
about in this NG and elsewhere, there are some people in the RP who are not
above dishonesty to gain money. I do not believe that one can assume purely
honorable motives in a civil suit on the part of all parties. Because I
believe that there may well be serious health problems engendered by toxics
on Clark does not mean I will just, as Uncle Sam, pony up the money to all
involved because their name is on the petition.
> Yeah, in light of this impassioned diatribe, and not that it matters
> mind you, I'd just as soon 'assume' that at 2:00am this morning you
> were posting from a dial-up in Fremont, and watching David Letterman
> ogle Connie Chung, but then again I could be completely wrong in
> that my 'psychic' powers might be a little rusty after such an
> enlighting exchange ;-)
Wrong yet again. Cable modem in El Cerrito. But you never let facts or
accuracy get in the way of a good opinion, do you?
This is it for me on this subject. I simply don't have the time or energy.
You are starting to get a glimmer of my true position, but you have to
clothe that in insults and denials of your own misunderstandings. Your
fingers would curl into arthritic knots if you had to admit you
misunderstood something, overreacted, or made a mistake. It's one of the
symptoms of youth, but it is generally not fatal.
Tell you what. You win. You were 100% right about everything you said, and
I was 100% wrong. I am so stupid and illogical that I undoubtedly bribed my
way through those test scores, those degrees and those successes. You have
humbled me and shown me how unworthy I am in the face of such a superior
mind. I consider it a great honor to have been beaten by you.
Randy
Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:24:21 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote [in capitulation]:
%%
>>On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 20:19:32 GMT, Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina <n...@cat5global.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:16:46 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>It gets harder than normal following your posts when you quote in full
>>>entire messages, then comment (rarely respond) to a bit here or there, so
>>>I'll snip most of the verbage.
>>I, OTOH shall execute this 'lil Anti-Non-Sequitur-Troll-Busting-script.sh(tm)
>>and return chain-of-events ...Err, context to it's rightful format and place,
>>so nothing is missed, omitted nor misconstrued. Waddayasay? ;-)
>>// begin
>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:39:00 GMT, Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina <n...@cat5global.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 01:15:03 PDT Bastos Kano <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:10:36 GMT, Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina <n...@cat5global.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:54:55 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Novus Ordo Seclorum Signum de Volpus Marina" <n...@cat5global.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>message news:Aplh5.401433$MB.63...@news6.giganews.com...
>>Interesting fable you've weaved here, Bastos but then again you were
Again, Bastos it was you who raised the issue of 'race' with your inferences.
Think 'bout it. Think back when you suggested that this matter in Clark
(& thread) was nothing more that "anti-American rhetoric." Think about how
you felt when you were painfully corrected that in fact it wasn't, but went
on to coin the term 'genetics' in your meanderings and whatever differences
exist between you and I, which of course has no relevance whatsoever with the
point of order but a clear effort to, not only convolute, but draw attention
to the issue of 'race,' in this exchange. And yet, with your recent your
"whiteboy," "golden goddess," and other characterizations of what lays just
above the skin and in a desperate effort in getting to the more deeper aspects
of what is happening in Clark, only serves to demonstrate just how shallow
one's perception can possibly be. Yeah 'buuuddy,' it's pretty clear that
you are hung up on the 'genetics,' and certain factors that differentiate
what is right and what is wrong in Clark - More notably your opposition
to having a civil-venue held.
>>Oh come now, Bastos I'm pretty sure it was a 'witch hunt' in your mind. Heck,
>>or else why would you ever spout it? "Is this a witch hunt?" you asked, and
>>for which was the first thing that entered you mind, and an opinion pre-conceived
>>and formulated based upon the 'intolerance,' opposition to the civil-trial,
>>or even ignorance over this matter in Clark. Furthermore, please, do note
>>that I've sub-scribed to keeping your meanderings and my points raised in a more
>>readable format since you habitually like cutting into my rebuts ...Or do you
>>usually do that in your conversation with others, when confronted with matters
>>that are beyond you and your tolerance. Moreover, I've no problem with your
>>strict-denial, and if you feel that by 'defining' my rebuts, however you deem
>>fit would theraputically benefit you, by all means do so.
>Dom, you simply cannot distort everything you read to fit into your
>prejudices and presuppositions. It obviously wasn't the first thing that
>came to mind because I didn't mention it in my first post. By using such a
>rhetorical question I wanted to point out that all rushes to judgement where
>people feel they "know" the facts are not just.
Your 'first post' clearly punctuated and prefaced your disposition to the matter
in Clark. Moreover, it was pretty clear that you were intolerant of any concept,
or opinion regarding the plaintiffs seeking compensation, yes? Furthermore, you
ridiculously suggested:
" You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up any
toxic contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP compensates
the US for the "tenant improvements ..."
re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
No, Mr. Bastos. In terms of 'rushing to judgement,' it was you who did
all the 'rushing,' and whose 'judgement' was without doubt notwithstanding.
But think about the intolerance imbued in this quip of your's. Now wouldn't
you say it was indeed just that? Intolerant?
>You sieze upon little items out of context and beat them bloody in post
>after post. I'm sorry you are so ashamed of the Philippines and Filipinos
>that you think they are no better than the Three Stooges -- that is a sad
>commentary on your own uncalled for feelings of inferiority and insecurity,
>but I assure you that even though you feel this way it is not true.
>Contrary to your stated position, the Philippines is not some slapstick
>country populated by corrupt, stupid and violent fools. I can understand a
>bit better why you are so quick to assume that others judge the Philippines
>because of your own feelings about it and Filipinos.
Oh come now Bastos Randy, where is your sense of humor? Yeah, I suppose
you've 86'd it since things haven't gone well for you in this exchange, nor
what you expected in terms of a campaign to emphasize what you truuuly meant,
eh? Yeah, but here is the actual quote I conveyed in reply to your suggestion
that the nature of the Philippines is some sort of "Shakespearean tragedy!":
" No it's more like a Three Stooges schtick : ) Seriously, the impact of
the US military/government's presence in the Philippines was not altogether
'evil' ..."
re: <pGDf5.473116$VR.59...@news5.giganews.com>
Shucks. I infused a wee-bit of objectivity, and humor, but of course you
didn't like this too much either since it decimated, or even disoriented
you into a tact which for the most part has become the crux of this exchange.
>Now, was the above accurate? Want me to repeat it in the next few posts,
>dismissing your rebuttal that that does not represent your true feelings,
>that you were using a humourous allusion? Want me to dismiss everything
>else you have ever said in your life to hang you in perpetuity for that one
>statement? Unfair? Of course. Distortion of your true feelings? Yes.
>Exactly what you do to me in every post? Soitenly.
You've been doing fine! Just keep up the great work! And I'll 'soitenly'
do the same, and as you wish Bastos Randy, since you are so adamant in
clarifying your point(s) with each and every meandering, yet 'aside'
definition & interpretation of what you -really- meant.
>Your insults are so... sophomoric. Yet I believe you *have* graduated from
>college. Your idea of debate is to insult your opponent, call him names,
>and tell him what he is really thinking. Wow. What a technique.
Heheheh ...On the contrary. Think about how you characterized (in a roundabout
manner) my opinion on this matter in Clark as "anti-American rhetoric." My
how you forget when confronted with matters that are presented to you which
invariably are commensurate to your insipid level of discernment.
>Denial? What am I denying? That I'm racist? That I hate Filipinos? That
>I don't think those people in Clark should have their cases examined and
>adjudicated? All of these things you claim I am in denial about are simply
>not true. Listen closely -- if I don't actually believe or state it, it
>doesn't mean I really believe it. When you distort things I say to fit your
>own agenda and ideas on what I *really* think, it is an exercise in your
>mind, not a reflection of reality. We're not talking about my denial, we're
>talking about your delusions.
Yeah, just like the RP should recompensate the US for 'base improvements?'
Talk about 'delusions,' and a lack of grasp on 'reality.' You took this
exchange and dragged it well below any semblence of rational discourse. But
yes, "delusions" that fit you reality is what we are attempting to ascertain
here since it is "funny" and entertaining to boot.
>>Now we are getting to the core of this, and it's about time. Follow me closely
>>now Bastos. You suggested, and deduced that before any action be taken on
>>Clark that some 'causal relationship' be established. Fair enough. Yet,
>>by the same token -is- the basis of your opposition to the suit filed by the
>>Plaintiffs against the RP and US gov'ts. Diba? Furthermore, I'm glad to see
>>that your 'perception' in this matter has been clarified, and not so much for
>>my benefit, but for your own which you continually fail to grasp. Moreover,
>>since it's now been established as a "fact" that you 'oppose' this, but we'll
>>address this further and later in this thread which I've already alluded to
>>but apparently missed (eg. grass-roots, non-government and independent
>>investigation).
>Glad you finally see that I am not saying that no problems exist, that the
>USG is blameless, that there are no toxics, that I do not want to see the
>people in court or compensated -- all things you have claimed in prior
>posts. You're getting there, babe! In fact, that's just about my whole
>platform in this thread, which you are now stipulating. The end is in
>sight.
Actually, it's a clear demonstration of your back-pedal in retrospect to your
initial opinion of this matter regarding Clark ...Or are you in a state of
'perpetual' denial over what you initially meant, and what you now mean?
Shucks, after thousands of lines of exchange, you've meandered, weaved 'asides'
and non-sequitured your position & in light of this reply is now even more
convoluted than ever before. But let's unravel this cryptic mystery shall we?
>No. Read my furry pink lips. IT IS THE WRONG VENUE. As I have said how
>many times before?
Hence, your clear opposition to the 'civil trial,' and class-action suit filed
against the US and RP gov't ...Not, may I add your unkempt disposition, eh
Chewbacca? : )
>You know more about my thinking than I do -- I "fail to grasp" my own
>perception? Can you be more rediculous than that. Maybe, just maybe, if
>what I say does not match what you think I mean, YOU are misunderstanding
>me! Wow, what a concept. You might be letting your preconceptions, your
>biases, your insecurities and your pride actually affect how you interpret
>things I say.
Oh no, Bastos Randy, it's all about how you meant what you said and the
emphatic manner you've declared them (perceptions and asides):
" How many health problems could have been avoided if they had been moved
back then? Ever see the Disney movie "Tarzan", where one gorilla kid
punches another with the second's fist, saying, "Stop hitting yourself.
<punch> Stop hitting yourself <punch>"? Seems every one is blameless
and has no responsibility except old Uncle Sugar ..."
re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
Hence your 'simian' inference to those who chose to stay at the CABCOM
facility, which later you re-constructed into something that had something
to do with one of your family members, yet another meandering 'aside,' err
non-sequitur. But then again, the ridicule in and of those who where in
the -context- of this exchange is undeniably clear.
>>I believe the use of this term rubs you a certain way, eh Bastos? Heck, I
>>think I offered a definition (ie. fallacy) as to what a 'non-sequitur' is,
>>yet as with the rest of this exchange selectively ignored it. And the manner
>>in which you rave ad infinitum, in opposition to me employing this term in
>>the course of our debate/exchange is quite apparent in that you fail to
>>see just where your own short-comings lay. But I'm not one to criticize
>>how you wish to define, in what you perceive to be my interpretations of
>>the terms I use, yet it does illustrate to what degree you are unwilling
>>to accept the fallacies and irrelevant "parables" you toss into this.
>>Nevertheless, it does however, shed more light as to where you are
>>coming from, and however limited it may be.
>And when I defined "fallacy" and asked you to point out specific examples,
>you failed many times to respond. You cannot just say, over and over and
>over and over again, that what I say is fallacious non sequiturs without
>being specific. And being specific doesn't mean, "well you said this, but I
>really know you meant just the opposite, which is a fallacy."
Heheheh ...I gave you a definition as to what a non-sequitur was, and that
it is indeed a compositionall 'fallacy' in this exchange and debate. Yet
you go on demanding that I 'define it' when you cannot see it's all right
here, right now, as I exhibit it accordinly on this chronicle of a thread.
And you know what that is Bastos Randy? Are you aware of what you are
exhibiting here? It's strict-denial. Denial of your argumentative fallacies;
Denial of what you meant when you posted your initial contentions on this
thread; Denial of my explicit 'definitions' of what your side of this debate
over Clark entails. And all you've done is 'deny' with a barrage of
meandering parables, non-sequiturs ...And of course compositional &
argumentative fallacies.
>Sure, the term rubs me the wrong way. Don't insults, unfair and oft
>repeated, irritate you? Should I just say, "You're right, Dom, your
>distortions of what I say and your lack of reasoning ability means that I am
>spouting fallacies." If I call you a liar often enough, will you take
>umbrage? If I say you are stupid, or illogical, or racist, or callous,
>often enough, will you just laugh it off? Your posts are filled with
>insults that you would never say to my face, and you are able to get away
>with wild logical absurdities which you could never try in real life. How
>should I take "I like you, I really do. You are stupid (try to follow me
>here, Randy), you lie, you distort, you are a racist, you have no reasoning
>ability, you are a typical American colonialist, but don't take it
>personally, OK?"
>Sheesh.
My citation of your fallacies and non-sequiturs are nothing more than
"distortions of what you say?" Heck, talk about 'denial,' e. How
compelling is this declaration?:
" I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
transaction, too."
re: <Wapf5.60053$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
Yeah, right. "Sheesh." Again, pls. take exceptional note of the delivery
of this ...Especially, the under-current/tone in which you tendered it.
The inference (ie. suggestion) regarding the Philippines and her people
is pretty stark.
>By your definition, Dom. You claim I *really* mean and believe many things
>that I do not, and then say I fail to acknowledge my shortcomings when I
>deny your absurd distortions. Among so many things I resent and deny, you
>claim I am a racist. I was involved in the civil rights movement before you
>were born. Should I just say, "Well, Dom say's I'm a racist, so I must be."
>Right.
Just remember, t'was you who raised the "race" card, and the "religion"
card in an effort to draw others into this exchange. IOW - Baiting. And
how it got to the point where you believe that I feel you are a racist
is of your own cocoction, not mine. But let's get to this civil-rights
thingy ...Heheheheh you were part of the 'movement' when Lincoln signed the
'Emancipation Proclamation?' Whow! You are indeed wiser beyond your years,
if not decrepit in your approach to the argument and point of order here, Bastos.
Hehehehe ...Oh what the heck, this matter is not as 'black and white' as you
might narrowly think, for there is grey matter as well. It's not about the
struggle of those who are OTW becoming more than just third, or second class
citizens. It's about people in Clark seeking compensation in the only venue
that was available to them at the time. And if you took my pursuit and
inquiries as to why you would raise the 'racial' aspect of those involved
in this case as a means by which to declare that you are a racist, you
are once again painfully incorrect. For you see, Bastos, therein once again
lays yet another fallacy in your argumentative tact here. And simply
remember how you delineated the 'color' of this exchange ...It's all right
here ...Nothing omitted ...Nothing left out. Yet, in light of my 'lil
Anti-Non-Sequitur-Troll-Busting-script.sh(tm) I find it ironic that you'd miss
this altogether.
>Just because what I say does not match what you think I believe does not
>mean I am dissembling. It means you are not that bright.
Yeah, I'm not as 'bright' as you, but I can at least read the words you ryte : )
>>Oh, now you were "specific in your witch hunt quip," eh? Whow. And when
>>you spoke volumes how it wasn't 'perceived' in the manner in which you
>>conveyed it, huh? Now tell me this, did you enter this thread with an
>>"open mind?" Of course not, and permit me to illustrate once again, just
>>how objective you were in your assessment of this matter in Clark:
>>
>>o " Who died on the bases, and how? You imply a few hundred died, yet
>> I have not seen that either in the reports on the lawsuit of in any
>> responses here. Are you assuming deaths? What link, other than "they
>> lived there and got sick", is there. Is this another witch hunt, "She
>> looked at my cow and the milk soured!"? I don't want to trivialize
>> this, but I have seen nothing in these discussions to clarify the nature
>> or extent of the problem, just people jumping on a "those dastardly
>> Americans left TOXIC WASTE!!! and our people are dying from it.
>> ' bandwagon.' ..."
>>
>>re: <http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=650658770.1&mhitnum=9&CONTEXT=965136707.663617548>
>>
>>Not very rational, or erudite 'assessment,' huh? : )
>Dom -- read this carefully. When I entered this thread, I had many
>questions, which I asked. I got many answers. Does that mean you must
>refer back to my first posts every time? That's ancient history. The fact
>that you have to keep bringing it up means YOU HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD, and
>my evolved position, which I have always admitted is better informed and
>more clear now, does not satisfy your desire to put me down. You have
>stipulated above that you say my concerns were fair -- yet you continue to
>insult and pull up old posts out of context saying, "Yes, but why did you
>say this?" Why are you so obsessed with me? Is it because mny wife is
>better looking than yours? That I make more money than you? That you
>somehow feel inferior to me for whatever reason so you need to tear me down?
>I'm too big a shed for you to do that, son.
Heheheh ...No need to drag our families and more intimate aspects of our
lives into this Bastos Randy since it doesn't involve them. And yes, I've
read it 'carefully,' and just because your argumentative skills are without
doubt lacking we need not bandy them about like trophies or fodder for our
debate. Furthermore, there is a lot here to add since you are adamant in
winning (whatever it is you concoct in your sphere of reality) and having
the last say in this. But what the heck, I won't stoop to your level of
discourse and dragging (baiting) our families in with our disagreements out
here, but if you ask around I'm sure there might be other takers commensurate
with your style of exchange. And with regard to your 'first posts,' they
are indeed important when we juxtapose them with your less than contrite
'apologistists' replies, and of which has been demonstrated time and again
here that they are nothing but contradictions, ie. non-sequiturs.
Yeah, you're own 'obsession' with your "Bastos Kano" personification out
here has given you more mileage than you ever hoped for in an argument, e.
But FYI, my furry-faced anonymous-Bastos Kano, and read this carefully:
It got REALLY ugly the last time a troll tried to drag my kin into an exchange,
or for that fact whenever flames and insults get to that level of discourse
...But if you'd like to take that tact in ripping into me, so be it. But
nevertheless, your 'aside' has been duly noted, and keep our respective
families and matters reserved for those who know each of us personally
out of this - Please, do exhibit some semblence of respect although -our-
exchange has become, how do I say? ...Testy?
>>Your 'fallacies' are strewn throughout this thread, but given your sense
>>of strict-denial, I'm not the least bit surprised that you are able to
>>identify them, and we'll get to the Tosco, Chevron, toxic thingy in
>>good time here, as well as your 'fallacies' in raising issues, what
>>you term "asides," which I deem "non-sequiturs" with regard to race,
>>religion, your family, etc. etc. ad infintum. But this is not as 'time
>>consuming' as you might believe, Bastos. A little 'timing,' time-management,
>>tolerance and a whole lot of patience is what is required, which evidently
>>you lack and have demonstrated accordingly.
>So demonstrate ONE fallacy. Just ONE.
Most recently, your desire to draw a discussion with regard to our own
respective families here, when of course you've been employing them as
bait in this exchange. Not the best way to argue a matter over Clark, eh?
>And it is time consuming to me to have to rehash this. At the speed I type,
>it takes a long time to respond. What that has to do with tolerance and
>patience ...oh, I see, just another childish scchoolboy insult. Got it.
No, just 'reality,' Bastos. Pls. do get a grip.
>>Freudian slip. But I'll give you the benefit of running that 'one' by you
>>again, given your opposition to a civil-trial it could be presumed that
>>no criminal charges will be pursued. Moreover, and since you raised the
>>OJ Simpson trial, didn't a civil case follow the criminal? Isn't a
>>civil-trial (venue) usually a last ditch course of action by plaintiffs
>>when felt that justice in their case was not served? Why not a criminal
>>trial? Shucks, early on you sought to dismiss the civil-trial altogether
>>since alluding to the suit as a "witch hunt."
>Show me what other legal steps have been taken. Is this a "last ditch"
>effort? Your injection of the Simpson trial is a non sequitur and
>misleading. When was the criminal trial here, and what were the results?
>Lousy argument, Dom.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, it was you who raised issue/aside with regard
to the Simpson trial ...Yeah, the strict-denial is kicking in big time
now : )
>And where does it follow that since I am against a civil trial I am against
>any other? That is YOU presumption, and once again you are dead wrong. I
>would like to see criminal trials over this NO MATTER WHETHER THERE IS A
>DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE TOXICS AND CLARK. I think any entity that fails to
>clean up toxics should face criminal proceedings, as well as any who aid and
>abet those who pollute. One real problem I see with the civil suit is that,
>as I understand it, it does nothing to compell the guilty parties to clean
>up the mess, which is a profound concern.
For nearly ten (10) years, nothing was done since the departure of the
US military there. And now, when the problem has been brought to the
forefront of attention, do we dismiss civil suit? In your opinion, 'yes.'
Funny how all of a sudden the venue of diplomacy between the RP and US
is conveniently a viable one (after nearly a decade), when in fact both
are named defendants in this : )
>>>>>And understand that when I say that the US should pay when they are
>>>>>compensated for "tenant improvements" that is irony, too. I know darn well
>>>>>that no one will ever compensate the USG for the bases. And I have also
>>>>>stated that I believe the US should pay. Those structures and
>>>>>infrastructures are a form of aid. Too bad no one had the decency to say
>>>>>even a qualified "Thank you."
>>>>No sir, you waffled when you were painfully corrected in and of this thingy
>>>>over 'tenant improvements,' come non-sequitur.
>>>Referring to JT's response? I simply didn't bother responding. I have been
>>>dealing with real estate for some 25 years, and have always gotten
>>>compensation for improvements. I would never improve another person's
>>>property without consideration. I just signed a 7 year lease on a new
>>>warehouse today where I got 3 months free rent for a few simple improvements
>>>I need to make.
>>>Bottom line for me is that the bases represent a gold mine if used properly.
>>>To pretend that they are not an asset is disingenuous.
>>Twenty-five years as a realtor and priest, I'm impressed : )
>>
>>Stick to the 'context' and focus here please. This isn't about what you
>>did for 25 years - And in thinking that you were some sort of preacher
>>for the most part of your life, and now for a greater part a realtor
>>doesn't really address the point of order, and which you conceded
>>in:
>>
>> " When JT tells me I am out in left field, I have to sit
>> up -- if *JT* thinks that, I'd better think about it!
>> That cautions me that it may be too late in the night for
>> me to be posting coherently. Sometimes my arguments get
>> off track, or I stretch a point (perhaps to the point of
>> rediculousness), or I say an inappropriate thing ..."
>>
>> re: <dE0g5.62620$i5.9...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
>>
>>Aw shucks. I went and did it again : ) The 'bottom line' here is that you
>>presented a non-sequitur, if not blatantly false assumption and now you
>>are indeed 'weaseling.' Yes, of course those bases are 'gold mines,' but
>>your declaration that the RP re-compensates the US (over this matter in
>>Clark no less) for the 'improvements made,' per the lease, rent or whatever
>>one sees fit, is a not valid declaration ...It's a weak and faulty rebut.
>>But you've dropped JT's name on this thread so much I'm wondering what
>>he has to do with the 'Toxics In Clark?'
>Typical Dom Distortion. Never said I was a realtor, but I've been buiying,
>selling and renting commercial properties for 25 years. Geez, Dom, you
>don't even try to read what I write. It just all goes in your overheated
>processor to be distorted along lines you feel make me look bad.
Don't you need some sort of credential, or even license for that? Don't
patronize me. And inasfar as making yourself 'look bad,' remember you
are Bastos Kano, and you don't need any help from me. But what is
'buiying?' Is that like building-buying the same property? Mebbe my
VI text editor is flaking on me since upgrading my 'processor' ...Lemme
check.
>Again, Dom Distortion time. Quote back how long I was a preacher. Never
>said it (at least not in this thread). You see, you can't put fingers to
>keyboard without distorting what I've said. I say I was a preacher, you say
>I was one for the most part of my life. See any difference there? Your
>wild assumptions make a conversation impossible. And as far as denial, your
>failure to accept and acknowledge that you make these distortions put you in
>a running with Cleopatra for Queen of Denial.
Oh? Hheheheh ...And while that was funny, let's consider this emphatic
declaration of your's:
"I was trained and served as a preacher for years ..."
re: <bMQh5.72910$i5.11...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
Unless you are Methusula, Dracula or some other immortal, I'd just as soon
assume it was for a 'for the most part of your life,' Bastos. But heck, the
'distortion' as to what you were trying to convey, and thus establish whatever
relative point to the exchange has been noted ..."For years" : )
>I have no need to debate with JT. I find him an intelligent and
>entertaining fellow who is not afraid to say what he means in the face of
>determined opposition. The above was my attempt to humourously extricate
>myself froma thread that I saw no positive experience for me in (think: all
>of Dom's insults, lies and distortions and the sleep they've cost me in
>replies). You will find that at times I refer to myself as stupid, although
>I'm not, lazy, although I'm not, etc. I believe you cut out the obviously
>hyperbolic reference to drugs and cough syrup (a line I use from Bill
>Murray's "Stripes" movie a lot, although I don't do drugs or drink).
What you do with regard to 'drugs' or 'drink' should go without saying,
but if you feel that you must atone for it out here. What the heck,
I'm open to non-sequiturs. Yet with regard to JT, aw shucks you need
not drop his name here to 'extricate' yourself from. And besides, I
thought you've been enjoying yourself here. Ah, yet another fallacy.
SCF Rule #5: Don't troll others to fight your battles for you.
>Just because you believe that the "gold mine" of the bases should be
>uncompensated and unappreciated does not mean I believe so. If I believe
>that there should be some cooperation between those who receive the benefits
>of the bases (whether private companies or the RPG) and the US, it is not a
>non sequitur nor a fallacy. Whether it is legally, economically or
>realistically feasible is not at issue, nor do the difficulties posed by
>those factors make my opinion fallacious.
Yet, the emphatic manner in which you declared this 'conditional' criteria
for the CLEAN UP of the base(s) was indeed fallacious. And to deny this
...Well, we are clear on where the propensity for that lays.
>You mean as an expat Pinoy like yourself? I believe I've mentioned him once
>or twice here -- do you consider that alot? They were appropriate places.
>I've mentioned PP2 more often, does that mean anything?
Who knows. I see that your are trying to troll-bait him into this foray
as well. But we'll see, you just might be on to something here 'tho : )
>>But yeah, you munged your words together so well, that even this could be
>>never, ever be misconstrued, eh? C'mon, you know full well of what you
>>suggested, and if I said it before, I'll say it again ...It's an
>>'affront' to any self-respecting Filipino. And please, take exceptional
>>note of the emphatic certainty of your quote above IN the 'context' and
>>'temperature' of our exchange, Bastos. It was indeed 'telling.'
>If you agree with my facts, do not say it is falllacious. If you believe
>that these facts reflect poorly upon the Filipino people, that is your call.
>I was pointing out an irony, which you called a non sequitur and fallacy.
>Now you agree it was not fallacious. Bit by bit I'm forcing you into
>retracting your false claims and insults, but then you spin away and say,
>"Well, the way you said it was insulting." Is there a way to say that life
>is cheap in the RP, or that corruption often overrides other values, without
>being insulting? If there is to be positive change in the RP, there has to
>be honest acceptance of the pros and cons of the culture without people
>getting hostile and defensive.
Oh come now, Bastos Randy. In reality, I disagreed 100% over what you
inferred with regard to the 'Japanese graves,' and what you suggested,
regardless of the meandering manner in which you wish to distort your
initial contention. And again, you're never short on words and you are
usually direct and to the point on things, so how can this ever be possibly
misconstrued?
>>So be it. And I still believe it might have been ROFL hilarious if one had
>>been there, and who knew you personally and of the circumstances around
>>this get together.
>We've agreed on this weeks ago. Why do you keep wasting badnwidth on it?
Talk about strict-denial ...Are you're -not- a party to this too? : )
>>>>>>Furthermore, this isn't about 'some whiteboy' as you so eloquently term,
>>>>>>criticizing the ills and problems of a nation and her people, it's really
>>>>>>about the preception one leaves behind when declaring matters as such
>>>>>>...And in terms of 'pigeonholing,' well, if you haven't noticed, I've been
>>>>>>leaving that up to you.
>>
>>>>>To some degree, I am responsible for the impression I leave behind. But if
>>>>>someone steadfastly refuses to accept either further explanations of my
>>>>>intent (it's called "communications") or even acknowledge when I state that
>>>>>my position has changed, that person holds sole responsibility for any
>>>>>aftertaste. I cannot help you there.
>>>>As negligent as it was, I'm pretty certain of that : )
>>>Again, as negligent as WHAT was? Talk about non-sequiturs! You need to
>>>make some referent to what you are talking about for it to make sense. You
>>>had one post to me where you made specific statements; since then, you
>>>simply don't respond to what I write. I find that frustrating. It's hard
>>>to rebut someone who doesn't say anything but "you write meandering
>>>fallacies."
>>Reference? You want references? Let's take all of your quotes that I've
>>cited, put them all together, and start all over again! Whaddya say? Let's
>>parse them accordingly and scuttle what we've established to this point and get
>>to the 'negligence' in and of them. Okey?
>In other words, you can't come up with anything concrete. That's been your
>tactic all along.
This thread is imbued with 'reference,' and in your own words as well. Heck,
if you can't see them, 'it's not my fault.'
>>Well, coining the psuedo "Bastos Kano" does stir images and does play upon
>>the imagination of many Filipinos in, for the most part, a Filipino-forum,
>>would 'stir people up,' wouldn't you say? And while I acknowledge (which
>>I wasn't too clear on before) your intent here, and as shared with you
>>prior this is pretty much a toasted NG with embers of flamewars still
>>smoldering in the landscape ...Moreover, it doesn't take much for a
>>conflagration to rekindle exchanges much more ...How do I say, as civil
>>as our exchange? Sure you are a 'pussy cat,' (funny someone mentioned
>>that to me earlier this week), but one wouldn't go around tossing blood-
>>dripping meat in a den of tigers, or cut oneself open with a knife in
>>a school of sharks, wot?
>You speak for all Filipinos here quite easily. I, however, don't believe
>you speak for a majority or I wouldn't waste my time here. Funny how you
>are the first in 8 months to say there is something about my handle that
>would "stir people up." Saying that is does, my friend, is a fallacy.
I believe I stated early on that, I don't speak for most, if not -all- the
Filipinos out here on this Filipino-newsgroup. But as a Filipino, with
Filipino experiences, upbringing and nuances, 'doncha think my , my inferences,
my deductions, my observations, and above all my opinions as a Filipino is
warranted? And in terms of "stirring people up" ...Get with the program,
"Bastos Kano," your not living up to your pseudo - In fact, you are becoming
quite ...How do I say this politely? ...Boring, as this thread has become?
>OK, here's a flash. To protect yourself from flames -- DON'T LOG ON! Why
>should I be afraid of flames? A flame is simply a caustic verbal insult
>message, which has no real physical presence in the world. You can filter
>it or read it and laugh. Dom, IT'S NOT REAL LIFE! It doesn't affect your
>family, or your work, or your physical safety. It's a social interaction,
>one out of (hopefully) many you have. IF I WAS SO DISRESPECTED OR SO
>DISRESPECTFUL OF THIS GROUP THAT I GOT FLAMED, WHY WOULD I WANT TO BE HERE?
>I believe it was you who said that a planned get together was cancelled
>because someone planned real violence -- ever heard of email to arrange
>things between trusted friends? Cancel a get together because you only make
>plans on a public forum? Hello!
Whoa. No need to go into a tizzy-fit Bastos Randy, just stick to the point
of order and we'll get along just fine. Now where wuz I? Oh yeah, that's
right, it was you who illustrated that you are indeed sensitive to other
peoples perception of you out here - Yet, you put it in terms of something
along the lines of 'real life.' And now you have the audacity to spout
or even suggest that there might be a tinge of 'reality' imbued here? Whow!
I'm impressed! Your dichotomy in and of this is really out there. And
BTW - What you are alluding to, & in what I shared (pls. note the title
of this aspect of the thread) was not so much just a 'flame' but a death
threat posted on this newgroup ...Or are you trying to diminish the gravity
of that was well by simply ignoring it? Are you ridiculing the sagacity
and competence of those who were planning to attend this event at Lake
Elizabeth in '98? Hmm.
Yet, the malevolence just beneath the surface of your rebut does indeed
illustrate yet another 'aside' to the what and why you continue with this
exchange. And of course this isn't 'real life,' but rather a surreal
rendition of reality itself, and I being nothing more than 'a pigment of your
vivid imagination,' diba Bastos?
>>>I introduced myself into this thread bringing up that the resources the US
>>>left behind in the bases never get acknowledged in discussions of what the
>>>US did or did not do when they left, or why and how they left. I still
>>>think this is a pertinent issue. So far, no one has denied that the bases
>>>represent a nice asset for the Philippines, but I have yet to see any
>>>Filipino acknowledge their worth. As I stated initially, this surprises me
>>>somewhat because many of the people I talked with in 1995 and 1996 there had
>>>great hopes for economic renewal and true community economic growth (of an
>>>acceptable kind, rather than the usual "commerce" that grows up around
>>>military bases) involving the base infrastructures.
>>I thought I'd never get the opportunity to share with you that I know first
>>hand of how those bases are being utilized. I go back there as frequently
>>as possible (it goes without saying I've many ties/kin there) and one'd be
>>impressed as to what is being done with them, especially in the way of
>>constructing new mfg. facilities, to the repaving and maintenance done
>>to the airfield at the former CUBI NAS in Subic. The work at the SBMA and
>>Clark, and since the time those you have 'talked to' in '95, '96 has been
>>slow but progressing, but it is 'happening.' Furthermore, these bases, or
>>'freeports' as they are called are keys to the Philippines economic growth
>>in Southeast Asia, which to a great extent, and which I alluded to very early
>>in this thread, is attributed to & thanks to U.S. military - But this doesn't
>>exonerate them, nor the RP gov't for that matter in their responsibility to
>>those who have died and suffered at Clark, and possibly other former US
>>military sites in the Philippines.
>A whole paragraph that I can enjoy and agree with. Good info to know.
Just for you.
>>>>>>Perhaps, blind-faith in the benevolence of both the US & RP government, and
>>>>>>what some bureaucrat at the RP CDC has to say about the well waters there?
>>>>>>And while you continue to make examples out of your family experience, which
>>>>>>I sincerely offer my empathy, of and for whatever reasons of your kin passing
>>>>>>away, this again has no bearing upon this matter of international concern and
>>>>>>those Filipinos who are seeking justice and compensation in this
>>>>>>matter.
>>>>>I was trained and served as a preacher for years. We use stories to
>>>>>illustrate points. It has a certain history in our profession, dating back
>>>>>a few years. Sorry if these illustrations do not reach you, but I'll
>>>>>continue to use them. Habit and homiletics.
>>>>I see where the pontification comes from ...Inclusive of the meandering,
>>>>fallacies and non-sequiturs ;-)
>>>Now who is not being "intimate" with their spirituality? Good preachers
>>>don't meander, or fill their sermons with fallacies or non-sequiturs. You
>>>must have a very low opinion of theology and the priesthood to even say such
>>>in jest and risk offending all of the Catholics and Protestants here who
>>>would not want their priests so slandered. See how easy it is to take an
>>>innocent remark and turn it on it's ear?
>>Heck, priests, preachers et. al. do indeed 'pontificate,' they
>>'meander' and are not above 'fallacies and non-sequiturs,' too,
>>but in the context of this exchange between you and I, it's indeed
>>fitting, has this thread cause you to take irreversable leave of
>>your sense of humor? B^)
>Funny. You criticize my sense of humor, then ask me why I can't take the
>things you write in jest in the tone they are intended. You have spent
>thousands of words telling me how my tone overwhelms my content, then you
>want me to ignore your tone. You insult me continually, then say,
>"Wassamata, Bastus, can't you take a joke?"
Heck, I'd like to think that I've been pretty jovial to this point : )
>>"Has no relevance to your stated position?" what's it doing there then?
>>A garnishment next to a club sandwich and sum fries? And whow! What
>>a staggering revelation as to what you -truuuly- meant, that could never
>>ever be misconstrued. Heck it's so dang deep that one would need some
>>scuba gear and a US Navy sub-rescue unit to extract the essense of this
>>earth-shattering definition of what you meant. But then again, you
>>are right 'not all things appear' to be 'connected' here with a whole
>>lot of 'reasonable doubt' in this soon to be 'meandering' dissertation : )
>>Ah, but yes, an introduction to yet another non-* err, "aside" -
>That, I admit, was a trap I knew you would walk into. The WORDING of an
>illustration does not equate to the argument the illustration supports. The
>words of an illustration do not necesarilly reflect the issues; if I told a
>story about a man with a wooden leg in connection with a discussion of the
>dangers to California wine growers of a certain pest, the wooden leg would
>have no relevence to the wine growers, but is self-referential to the story.
>You, on the other hand, would say that I am claiming all wine growers have
>wooden legs, and how can I spout such fallacies?
Only when you omit my rebuts and then 'spout' a fabrication to the contrary
...And again, that wasn't very sporting of you, but my trusty Anti-Non-
Sequitur-Troll-Busting-script(tm) is quite a match for whatever impotent
"trap" you set out here, Bastos ;-)
>>>>Okey.
>>>>>Wake up!
>>>Finally, why not admit you made a mistake? Why try to turn it into me lying
>>>when you are the one who blew it?
>>Actually, and personally, I no longer live in the Bay Area, but let's cut to
>>the chase here shall we? And again. We were speaking in the context of
>>'toxics,' right?
>>Not Chevron, not Richmond, not where you live (hence the meandering
>>non-sequitur/fallacy), because we were talking about toxic emissions and
>>their effects of people IN the context of those in Clark ...Are you
>>following me so far? Don't go away.
>>Now, in a broad brush stroke you 'paint,' those in Clark as with those who
>>you deem there, or wherever you are, as out "get in on a settlement."
>>Still following me? And as an 'aside,' yes, I think I'm entitled to those,
>>I raised the issue over the facility in Avon -which- is not only in the same
>>county but "The town next to where you live," -which- I presumed was Avon
>>yet another industrial town within Contra Costa County.
>>Now, with regard to the 'point scoring,' and juxtapose it with your
>>"Life isn't about winning or losing for me .." it is nothing more than
>>a contradiction, and yes, a compositional fallacy. As for the 'racists'
>>suggestive inclination(s), you've punctuated something that was never
>>an issue until you yourself raised issue with it.
>>But, now you are cookin' It's not the 'complexity' per se, in and of
>>the situation, but the narrow approach you employ in addressing the
>>subject, which to a great degree is confusing, if not confounding. You
>>are quite up on the term "toxic waste," yes? You haphazardly equate it
>>with people, disingenous people at that, "to get in on a settlement."
>>In spite of the finding to date there in Clark with regard already
>>infirmed and or dying. Geez. Again, the refineries of Contra Costa
>>are thousands of miles from Clark, and a whole culture away ...Why
>>then the broad generalization and inference? A fallacy? No doubt
>>about it.
>So you dismiss your attack on me saying I was lying about the nature and
>degree of the problems at the refinery I mentioned (why is it you didn't
>quote back THAT little exchange, eh? The one that shows you were 100% wrong
>in your "understanding" of my illustration? I wonder...")
Was I declaring that you were 'lying' about the 'degree' with regard to
the Chevron refinery, and the emissions? On the contrary, Bastos Randy.
I was simply illustrating you -fallacy- in attempting to paint those
who would submit to such fallacious ("getting in on a suit") with those
in Clark seeking a venue/compensation, which of course are worlds away
from one another in terms of circumstances and events. And again,
it was clear that you were being fallacious in comparing the two, as well
as your aversion to the term "toxic," and equating this with those with
false intentions. But if you could just see how disingenous that retort
was, perhaps you might - maybe even see the fallacy in and of this.
>If you read the context I brought up the refinery in, you will see that I am
>stating that I have experienced people who have made claims in civil
>litigation of medical symptoms that were fraudulent. I made no claims as to
>whether fraud was involved in the Clark case, but use the illustration to
>show that I have seen cases where people take advantage of a very real
>situation for their own gain. You feel that no skepticism should be in mind
>when thinking of the Clark lawsuit, but you aren't thinking like someone who
>has ever had liability for anything. I prefaced the paragraph with "What
>evidence is there that the 2 cases of heart disease which are cited in these
>discussions were related to toxics?" This is a theme which I have
>maintained thoughout this discussion (and which you are beginning to accede
>is correct).
Of course not. Granted we've made a lot of assumptions in the course of
this exchange, but I find this matter involving "toxics" and those who
you'd just as soon paint with that broad brush of yours quite interesting.
Furthermore, there was no other 'preface' other than your subtle comparison
with those filing suit in Clark. Now while I see that you are once again
assuming that I've never confronted and dealt with matters concerning liability,
and the responsibilites thereof I must say that your verbose, yet double-speak
over what you meant with regard to your non-sequitur, which was indeed the
Chevron refinery, does not in anyway diminish the point that you did indeed
compare the two.
>Sometimes your English is very hard to follow, but you do much better than I
>could with Tagalog so I shouldn't complain. trying to make sense out of the
>above paragraph: I never said those in Clark were out to get a settlement
>"they did not deserve". You have to add the last, because that is what the
>illustrations about Chevron and the Safeway warehouse (the second
>illustration you ignored -- why? Because you thought you had caught me in a
>factual mistatement about the Tosco refinery when I was clearly referring to
>Chevron). People sometimes take advantage of a situation to add themselves
>to the rolls of the truly injured in order to get compensation. Maybe this
>only happens in the US, but with all I have seen personally and all I read
>about in this NG and elsewhere, there are some people in the RP who are not
>above dishonesty to gain money. I do not believe that one can assume purely
>honorable motives in a civil suit on the part of all parties. Because I
>believe that there may well be serious health problems engendered by toxics
>on Clark does not mean I will just, as Uncle Sam, pony up the money to all
>involved because their name is on the petition.
Of course my 'English' is hard to follow. Remember? You declared that I
wasn't 'bright,' and being a Filipino my grasp of the English language isn't
as proficient, nor as perfect as your's. And be that as it may, I believe
that I've proved my point, a thousand-fold at that, that this was not about
"anti-American rhetoric," and that for a non-litigasaurus such as myself
(as well as you) are entitled to whatever opinions may be held in regard to
the "Toxics In Clark." Furthermore, the depths, or even the shallowest of
our exchanges should not be misconstrued with what is actually going on out
there. For the fact of the matter here is that people are seeking assistance
and compenstation in a 'venue' they see fit, yet your contention is, along
with the meandering fallacies and non-sequiturs, that there is another
which to this point isn't clear, nor existent for nearly the last decade.
>>>Your entire analytical method is laid bare, with all of your arrogance,
>>>distortions, misunderstandings and preconceptions visible in one little
>>>exchange.
>>>Randy
>>Yeah, in light of this impassioned diatribe, and not that it matters
>>mind you, I'd just as soon 'assume' that at 2:00am this morning you
>>were posting from a dial-up in Fremont, and watching David Letterman
>>ogle Connie Chung, but then again I could be completely wrong in
>>that my 'psychic' powers might be a little rusty after such an
>>enlighting exchange ;-)
>>
>> l8R
>>
>> - Dominic
>Wrong yet again. Cable modem in El Cerrito. But you never let facts or
>accuracy get in the way of a good opinion, do you?
Did you ever declare the means by which you access that news-server? Of
course not - And I'm not entitled to 'presume?' Shucks, I suppose this
info is better than dragging our wives & family into this, yes?
>This is it for me on this subject. I simply don't have the time or energy.
>You are starting to get a glimmer of my true position, but you have to
>clothe that in insults and denials of your own misunderstandings. Your
>fingers would curl into arthritic knots if you had to admit you
>misunderstood something, overreacted, or made a mistake. It's one of the
>symptoms of youth, but it is generally not fatal.
Heheheh ...Of course not, but you didn't imagine that you nor I would've' such
an impact on this newsgroup either now did you? Come to think of it, this
hasn't been "real" at all, and your presence out here being nothing more
than one -big- contradiction wrapped in a non-sequitur.
>Tell you what. You win. You were 100% right about everything you said, and
>I was 100% wrong. I am so stupid and illogical that I undoubtedly bribed my
>way through those test scores, those degrees and those successes. You have
>humbled me and shown me how unworthy I am in the face of such a superior
>mind. I consider it a great honor to have been beaten by you.
>Randy
Not so fast, Bastos ...I haven't employed my 2nd-string of arguments, yet!
Oh, what the heck, and 'aside' from your snide-aside, I shall take exceptional
note of the sarcasm in and of this conditional capitulation of yours, however
that's not what's important here, rather what can be gleaned from such a
dramatic epic exchange. And you know what, & FYI there were no 'winners'
(per se) in this - Since that would be a loser's consideration to even think it.
l8R
- Dom
%%
Bastos Kano
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:24:21 GMT, "Bastos Kano" <jrs...@home.com
<mailto:jrs...@home.com>> wrote [in capitulation]:
Sometimes, it is best to know when to quit. You should have just gloated at
my "capitulation" and left it alone. Instead, you force me to respond one
last time.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #1
> Again, Bastos it was you who raised the issue of 'race' with your
inferences.
> Think 'bout it. Think back when you suggested that this matter in Clark
> (& thread) was nothing more that "anti-American rhetoric."
This betrays either your misunderstanding if the meaning of "anti-American"
or your deliberate mininterpretation to make it fit your presuppositions.
The phrase "anti-American" makes no reference to race. It is a reflection
of cultural, political, philosophical and/or economic criticisms of the
United States, its peoples, history and policies. In common usage, it is a
label used to categorize people of any ethnicity, national origin or
religious persuasion who apply blanket negative stereotypes to the people
and country of the US.
Consider these primarily caucasian nations, and the anti-American sentiments
expressed there:
France: http://www.brook.edu/comm/chat/gordon000505.htm
Sweden:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.nnn.se/levfram/answers.html+anti-Am
erican+Sweden&hl=en
Norway: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/27/kosovo.protests.02/
Greece: http://www.ahmp.org/Washpo14.html
Canada: http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/leftism/glazov05-16-00p.htm
Germany: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~mayer/SocCult/a-markowitz.htm
Spain: http://www.georgethomasjr.com/film/barcelona.html
"Hanoi Hannah" Jane Fonda is viewed by at least a quarter-million
ex-military (not to mention countless civilians) of my generation as the
epitome of "anti-Americanism", and she's about as whitebread as they come.
There is even at least one white person here who makes anti-American
statements.
As a naturalized US citizen, you are an American, also. Walking down the
street, as you see the vast diversity of races and cultures thrown together
on any cosmopolitan US road, you will note that the majority of them are
"Americans" who would object to your apparent belief that "American" refers
to one or more specific races.
To state, as you do, that a discussion of anti-Americanism raises the issue
of race is untrue on the face of it.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #2
> Think about how you felt when you were painfully corrected that in fact
it wasn't,
Show me where I was "corrected" that it wasn't anti-American sentiment that
has prompted your words or has influenced the civil lawsuit. Remember, I
questioned whether anti-American sentiment prompted both certain statements
in this NG and influenced those reporting on the extent and nature of the
contamination and filing civil claims. To demonstrate what I interpret as
anti-American statements from you on the topic, here are your words:
>but by the same token if one had 'leased' a house to say ...A
>bunch of drunken US sailors, whom for some maniacal reason thought to trash
>the property, or even wantonly defecate throughout the premises, or
recklessly
>housed spent nuclear fuel rods/pellets, is one well within the capacity to
>seek compensation for damages, and reparations? I would think so.
> IMO it's not JUST about making the U.S. government (ie. military) "look
like
>the bad guys," since they've been 'looking' like that since they left
Your opinion of the US Navy is duly noted, and at least in my view it is
negative and prejudicial. It lumps together all Naval personnel in a
negative stereotype, and by implication all the way from the enlisted ranks
to general officers (or whatever they call them in the Navy).
Note also that you say it's not "JUST" about making the USG look like the
bad guys ... which admits to the fact that this is at least ONE motivation.
You have thus agreed with my suspicion that this might be influenced by
anti-American sentiment.
By your own words, you demonstrate the anti-American rhetoric I was
concerned about in this newsgroup and you agree that anti-American sentiment
is a factor in the protests and civil suit. Thus when you state that I have
been " painfully corrected" you are making a fallacious statement.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #3
> but went
> on to coin the term 'genetics' in your meanderings and whatever
differences
> exist between you and I, which of course has no relevance whatsoever with
the
> point of order but a clear effort to, not only convolute, but draw
attention
> to the issue of 'race,' in this exchange.
To begin with, I did not "coin" the term genetics; I believe that happened
about 1905.
I went back through my posts to see what you referred to as my bringing up
the issue of genetics. My memory said that I had used it only in regard to
establishing normative data to evaluate whether the illnesses and deaths in
Clark were outside the pattern for the area, but I found what you may be
referring to. On 7/31 I wrote:
>Not sure what
>you mean by "aloofness to matters beyond you". I could read that as a dig
>at my intellectual capacity to comprehend the issues, but instead prefer to
>read it as "issues in which you have no personal stake or experience". If
>the later is the case, I would suggest that you might also have the same
>said of you; aside from genetics, how different are we in our distance,
>physically and philosophically, to Clarke?
My point here was obviously challenging your apparent position that I had no
stake in the events at Clark and thus should not comment on them. I do not
assume that a Filipino-American living in the US has more right to opinions
regarding events in the RP than I do simply by reason of racial heritage.
You are lumping it together with your position that "race" is an issue for
me, when in fact my use of racial heritage here indicates I DO NOT think it
should be a factor! Note that you replied in a round-about discussion about
how your life had been affected by a US chemical company and the USG, and
thus you had philosophical links to these people at Clark. You were tacitly
agreeing with me that race was not the determining factor of relevance here.
To claim that my use of "genetics" to acknowledge your ethnic ties to the
people at Clark is part of an over-all racial bias is fallacious. Had I
*NOT* acknowledged your genetic ties to those in the Philippines I would
have been guilty of falsehood.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #4
>And yet, with your recent your
> "whiteboy," "golden goddess," and other characterizations of what lays
just
> above the skin and in a desperate effort in getting to the more deeper
aspects
> of what is happening in Clark, only serves to demonstrate just how shallow
> one's perception can possibly be.
I refer to myself as "the white boy". My family refers to me as "the white
boy". An Vietnamese employee who has worked for me over 14 years refers to
me as "American white boy". I happen to prefer it to "sir", "fat boy" or
"hey you!" I believe my wife started this, when we started dating. She
said something like "I never dreamed I would go out with a white boy." I
latched on to that and it became our personal referrent. In part, we use it
publicly because it temporarily disconcerts some people of all ethnicities.
Is it wrong to use it? Perhaps a little wicked when used to tweak
politically correct sensibilities, but since I am a white boy (well, man,
but if Mike Love can still be a Beach Boy I can be a white boy) I see no
harm in it. Superficial? Of course, but I have no need to be profound all
of the time. On my playmate data sheet I wrote as one of my turn-offs
"people who take life and themselves too seriously".
**Non-sequitur alert** W.C. Fields was walking off the set with Mae West
during the filming of "My Little Chickadee" and he patted her butt. Mae
turned to him indignantly and said, "Keep your hands to yourself, Bill!" To
which Fields replied, "Ah, my dear, you take things too seriously. I was
just trying to guess your weight."
I will defend to the death my right to refer to my wife as my "golden
goddess", just as I refer to my son as my "golden boy". The first came from
a time when my wife's skin darkened during pregnancy, and her (ever so tiny)
vanity had her crying to me over it. You, as a recent father, know of those
times in pregnancy when the husband's job is to comfort and support. I told
Maria that she was not dark but still my golden goddess, and the term stuck.
My boy is the "golden boy" not because of skin coloration but because my
family in the Philippines, upon seeing him for the first time, started
calling him "Randy's golden boy". It was their way of acknowledging how
precious he was to a father who waited until he was 42 to have a child.
Shallow? My depth is there for any who know me. Race was not a factor in
my marriage; the people who introduced me to Maria didn't even mention her
ethnicity, and the only times it has been a factor has been when we are
outside the SF Bay area and sometimes get "those looks" or when my wife gets
mistaken for the nanny by other Filipinas when she has JR with her. I'm
sure race is more of a factor for you, but don't falsely transfer your
perspectives on race to me. I can understand only to a degree what it means
to be a minority in the US, and how it intensifies your perceptions on what
is and is not racially motivated. In my life, I've learned to judge people
by who they are, how they treat their families and friends, by their honesty
and candor. I refuse to allow racial "profiling" to prejudice me against
someone I meet -- everyone has the same chance to impress or distress me.
Given my civil rights involvement in the 1960s, my diverse circle of friends
(few of whom are white, a not-uncommon situation in the Bay Area), my
marriage "outside" my "race" and the adoption and support of my wife's two
full-blood Filipino children, and the closeness I have developed with my
Filipino family in the RP, your claim that I am "shallow" in the racial
arena is patently false.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #5
>Yeah 'buuuddy,' it's pretty clear that
> you are hung up on the 'genetics,' and certain factors that differentiate
> what is right and what is wrong in Clark - More notably your opposition
> to having a civil-venue held.
And what, pray tell, does my stating that a civil trial is not the most
appropriate venue for this issue (my preferring a governmental or
supra-governmental negotiation) have to do with "genetics" or race? That's
plain silly. You seem to claim above that I am saying, "These people
should not file a civil suit because they are Filipinos!" Harken back to
the quote you started this thread off with:
>" ...It would be difficult to sue the US because Philippine courts
>have no jurisdiction over sovereign states, and that any decision
>could not be executed if the plaintiffs win ..."- DFAS - Domingo Siazon,
Jr.
This quote, which you selected as a "quotable to ponder" indicates that this
venue is probably not the best. I am agreeing with Mr. Siazon, Jr. Is he
hung up on genetics, too?
If recognizing that I am white and my wife is Filipino makes me "hung up" on
genetics, I plead guilty.
AFAIK, I used "genetics" once to acknowledge your ethnic ties with the folks
at Clark, and once to illustrate factors (along with environment, diet,
etc.) that might exist within a population to make certain maladies more
common than in the general population. Does this constitute "hung up"?
Perhaps our definitions differ here, too.
Your claim that my being "hung up" on genetics and that this is a major
factor in what I believe should happen at Clark is false and denied by your
own statements.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #6
> Your 'first post' clearly punctuated and prefaced your disposition to the
matter
> in Clark. Moreover, it was pretty clear that you were intolerant of any
concept,
> or opinion regarding the plaintiffs seeking compensation, yes?
Furthermore, you
> ridiculously suggested:
>
> " You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up any
> toxic contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP compensates
> the US for the "tenant improvements ..."
To begin with, this is not from my first post on the subject, a blatant
untruth on your part. My first post was to PP2 in the "How can we make the
US pay for these damages?" thread. I know how you love quotebacks, so I'll
quote it in entirety:
>I have a lot of questions about this.
>Firstly, is there no such thing as a statute of limitations on such cases?
>Secondly, I have never heard of any links between any kind of contamination
>(other than inhaling cigarette smoke or obesity) contributing to heart
>disease. This is not one of the problems normally associated with
>contaminants.
>Thirdly, what are the nature of the contaminants? Are we talking heavy
>metal from plating, petroleum seepage from above or underground tanks, etc.
>Fourthly, how are damages being assessed? In the US, there is generally
>some economic calculation based upon the theoretical lost income and
medical
>bills, plus some form of punitive damages. I think I read in one of these
>posts on the subject that there are only 200 participants in the lawsuit --
>asking $102 billion US? These people are all members of the Tan or Estrada
>families, perhaps? It doesn't sound like a class action suit yet.
>All else aside, it is difficult (and expensive) to prove a link between
>contamination and illness. The most common defense is looking at actuarial
>data on the area -- are the instances of certain cancers higher here than
>elsewhere, etc. Two people out of a population of how many getting heart
>disease is not going to cause anyone in the USG to break a sweat. I think
>this sounds like a grandstand play to perhaps eke a few dollars of nuisance
>settlement.
>Randy
The quote you post above as coming from my "first post" was actually my 4th
on the topic and the second in your thread. You keep saying things like
"Your 'first post' clearly punctuated and prefaced your disposition to the
matter in Clark." I agree. My first post elaborated my concerns (see
above) about statute of limitations, the difficulty of proving links even if
they existed, questions about the exact nature of the contamination and
alleged consequences, and postulated that, given the difficulty of proving
such a case from the plaintiff's view that it may be a tactic, well-used by
lawyers, to elicit a "nuisance settlement". Not at all what you would have
people believe (and what I'm sure you have yourself believing).
Perhaps you are referring to the disposition shown in my "first post" in
your thread? I wrote:
>One issue that is never addressed in these discussions about how the horrid
>Americans abused their "lease" is the matter of "improvements" made at the
>bases. I can only guess, having never had reason to visit a US base in the
>RP, that these bases include buildings, roads, airports, etc., with
>substantial electrical and communications infrastructures far superior to
>those of the surrounding communities. Judging from the US bases that were
>shut down in the States, these provide excellent places for business and
>residences. In the old Presidio in San Francisco, such luminaries as George
>Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic, Robert Redford's Sundance group, etc.,
>are all vying for space. My guess is that the US left improvements in the
>hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions.
>When I was in the RP in 1995, all the talk was how these bases would
attract
>the scared businesses from Hong Kong who did not know what would happen in
>1999. There was a great deal of optimism that future uses of the bases
>would actually involve helping the local economies with "acceptable"
>employment (i.e., not hookers or bars) and bring tax revenues into the
>community coffers. It was stated to me that the lease payments from the
>bases never made it into the economy but rather the pockets of politicians.
>I do not believe that optimism exists any more, nor have I heard great
>things about current use of the bases.
>Randy
In this "first post" I say nothing about the lawsuit or the lahar victims.
I am simply making a truthful observation that the buildings and
infrastructure left by the USG are a vast resource. You have subsequently
agreed with me, and have given examples how these are being used for the
economic improvement of the areas. If it is true, no matter how painful it
is for you to admit, it is not "fallacious" or a "non-sequitur". The only
thing potentially false in my first post was my *belief*, so stated, that
the optimism for economic promise embodied in the abandoned bases had
declined. This is based upon subsequent conversations with family members
on the usage of the bases in the past few years, and I agree it is not a
definitive sample.
My response, which you quote above as my "first post", was offered after you
said things like "It's about the Filipino-people who died as the result of
the US military abandoning and leaving behind toxics which have killed a
number of Filipinos." Where is your prejudice? You have since admitted
that ascertaining the facts of the case is "Fair enough", yet here you have
already rushed to judgement and found the USG and RPG guilty. Start at the
beginning of your thread and see where the prejudice, vehemence and vitriol
began. You took an intellectual discussion and transformed it into a
personal battle.
Your contention that my "disposition" and "intollerance" was established
with my "first post" is blatently untrue.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #7
> No, Mr. Bastos. In terms of 'rushing to judgement,' it was you who did
> all the 'rushing,' and whose 'judgement' was without doubt
notwithstanding.
Who rushes to judgement, the one who believes that the facts should be
ascertained or the one who is convinced of guilt before the evidence is
weighed? I have maintained all along that no one here has enough facts to
make a judgement, and it should be adjudicated by the proper governmental or
supra-governmental bodies. You have maintained all along that the US is
guilty and should pay.
Your claim it is I, not you, who has rushed to judgement is patently false.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #8
What you fail to recognize is that you twist my humorous illustrations
(i.e., the scene from "Tarzan") into racist statements about Filipinos which
is an obvious non-sequitur, then you object to my demonstrating how your
statements could also be so misconstrued if I so desired. Where was *YOUR*
sense of humor when you said my illustration likened Filipinos to "simians"
(which couldn't have been farther from the truth)? My illustrations are
demeaning, chaotic, meandering non-sequiturs, while yours are humorous bon
mots I would appreciate if I had a sense of humor.
My illustration from Tarzan would have worked if it involved Rhodes
scholars, captains of industry, world-class athletes or any other possible
subjects. As you apparently deliberately overlook, the illustration is not
about the actors, but about the action. The moral is that anyone who allows
another to punch him with his own hand has some responsibility to make it
stop. My point was never that the lahar victims had sole, or even major,
responsibility for problems that emerged once the RPG had offered to move
them, but that they could not be absolved of all responsibility for acting
to protect themselves and their children. Look how you twist my words in
this area:
I wrote:
>So, we have lahar victims who believe they are in peril for their lives who
>asked not to be relocated because it would disrupt their children's
>schooling. Does this speak to the urgency of the medical threat they feel?
>They are willing to expose themselves and their children to slow and
painful
>death for the sake of their doomed kids' schoolmate friendships and teacher
>attachments? This doesn't sound right. We also have squatters who risk
>death. Nerissa Sagum-Agustin also said that people had been complaining of
>symptoms of contamination since 1995. Wouldn't the liability then be shared
>with the RP agencies responsible for housing the refugees in the motor
pool?
>How many health problems could have been avoided if they had been moved
back
>then?
You responded:
>Neverthless,
>I've no personal knowledge of [families both 'legitimate,' or not] what
their
>true intents were, nor to what degree they knew of when it came to how much
danger
>they were in. However, it does speak volumes in their determination to
continue
>their children's education, despite of their lack of knowledge, or just
plain
>ignorance of the dangers which laid beneath them. Yet, the inference that
they
>were ultimately and singularly wrong, and that 'old Uncle Sugar' (ie. the
U.S.)
>is above consideration in this negligence is nothing more than a clear
apologistic
>attempt at patronization, if not a weak apologistic manner of discourse and
>exchange.
You take my "liability then be shared" and turn it into "they were
ultimately and singularly wrong". This is just one more clear example of
how you, deliberately or otherwise, turn my statements upside down to fit
your agenda.
And consider that you state above I suggested "that the nature of the
Philippines is some sort of "Shakespearean tragedy". Here is what I
*REALLY* wrote:
>There is a great value in the bases themselves which so many
>would dismiss. "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft
>interred with their bones." And no, I am not saying the RP is a
>Shakespearean tragedy! ; )
My Shakespearean reference is to the familiar quote of Marc Anthony's from
"Julius Caesar". It is clearly in reference to the good of the bases being
forgotten and the bad remembered. Knowing how you distort and twist things,
I even pointed out that I was *NOT* saying life in the RP was a
Shakespearean tragedy... which you have gone ahead and misquoted anyway!
Your claim that I said that "the nature of the Philippines is some sort of
"Shakespearean tragedy" is clearly misleading, fallacious, disingenuous and
a complete reversal of what I actually said.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #9
> Shucks. I infused a wee-bit of objectivity, and humor, but of course you
> didn't like this too much either since it decimated, or even disoriented
> you into a tact which for the most part has become the crux of this
exchange.
Word usage aside: How does killing one in ten people (or even "killing a
whole bunch", as modern usage of "decimate" would have it) have anything to
do with my changing tacts?
You infuse "objectivity"? I certainly haven't seen it. All of the above
fallacies and distortions you have attempted to offload scarcely qualify as
objectivity. And I find it fascinating that you claim that likening life in
the RP with a 3 Stooges schtick is "objectivity". This shows what you
*really* think of the people you left behind. This betrays a contempt for
Filipinos in the RP which I find quite disturbing. You seem to be saying,
"Let's face it, the way things work in the RP is like some bumbling farce."
I do not think that characterizing the struggles and problems of 70 million
people as some bumbling nation of incompetents is accurate, fair or
objective. I cannot believe you really believe this. Or are you saying
that Filipinos are like middle-aged white guys with bad hair? You
repeatedly state that my "Tarzan" analogy involves claiming the people of
the Philippines are some form of simian, because apes are the actors in the
illustration, so your analogy must also involve equating the actors with the
population. Are you saying Filipinos are really middle-aged white guys with
bad hair? Or was the purpose of your analogy to express how you feel things
are handled in the RP?
The "crux" of this exchange has been you distorting what I say, calling me
names, then denying when you are wrong. If you read my posts in this
thread, the same points are reiterated again and again -- that I believe the
civil trial is the wrong venue (ironically in agreement with the quote you
started this thread with), that I am not convinced from what I've read that
there is an actionable cause-effect relationship established between the
located toxics and the reported medical symptoms/deaths, that I believe that
we do not know enough to apportion blame at this point, although some must
fall upon the people who refused to be removed from what they claimed was a
contaminated site, etc. When you look at my *real" first posts on this
thread you will find that I have maintained my position on the issues from
the beginning. You may not *agree* with my position, but that is a
different story.
I have seen you, on the other hand, go from claiming there is no need for
investigation into the facts into acknowledging that this is fair and
reasonable, from claiming that I am maintaining that there should be no
adjudication and judgement to saying I am against a civil suit for racial
reasons. You have gone from deriding the value of the bases for Philippine
economic growth to acknowledging they are indeed quite valuable. And so on.
Your claim that I have been "disoriented" into the nature of this argument
is fallacious, since I am responding to your distortions and fallacies,
maintaining my same arguments again and again. You have even said that I am
boring and repetitious -- a clear testimony to my reiteration of the same
points again and again in the face of your distortions.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #10
> >Your insults are so... sophomoric. Yet I believe you *have* graduated
from
> >college. Your idea of debate is to insult your opponent, call him names,
> >and tell him what he is really thinking. Wow. What a technique.
>
> Heheheh ...On the contrary. Think about how you characterized (in a
roundabout
> manner) my opinion on this matter in Clark as "anti-American rhetoric." My
> how you forget when confronted with matters that are presented to you
which
> invariably are commensurate to your insipid level of discernment.
Where do I say *YOUR* opinion is "anti-American" rhetoric? I have searched
the threads and cannot find it.
I believe my first reference to "anti-American rhetoric" came when I said:
> My sympathies go to the people whose lives were devastated by Pinatubo
> and now a possible health risk. I draw the line at placing all the blame
on
> the USG and military, and do not believe that a knee-jerk response is in
> order. First, determine the facts, then address the issues without
anti-American
> rhetoric and finger pointing.
I also wrote:
>I am definitely not for ignoring this situation, but I also feel that just
>because the US is involved that the case is not open and shut. There are
>too many unknowns now. Perhaps the WHO is an appropriate body to
>investigate and adjudicate the matter (or some body that can be depended
>upon to not be biased by the envious anti-American sentiment so common
>today).
I call for a solution to the issues without anti-American rhetoric. I am
obviously not referring to rhetoric in this NG because that will have no
impact on the outcome of governmental deliberations. Ergo, your claim that
I state your opinions are anti-American rhetoric is not in keeping with the
facts, and a blatant distortion of what I said to serve your own agenda.
Is my statement that there is anti-American sentiment common in the world
today fallacious? Try typing "anti-American" into Google, then read the
23,300 links from around the world. Should a defendent be concerned about
the bias of his prosecutor, judge and jury? Obviously yes, so my concern
for finding a fair body to adjudicate this is reasonable. In a way I am a
defendent here, as my tax dollars will go toward any settlement, and as an
American I have a stake in the reputation of my country. Every Filipino
living in the RP is also a defendent, for the same reasons.
Word usage note: "insipid" is not a proper modifier for "level of
discernment". The insult would work much better if you did not try to use
big words to impress people; "pathetic level of discernment" is a much
better insult.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #11
>>When you distort things I say to fit your
> >own agenda and ideas on what I *really* think, it is an exercise in your
> >mind, not a reflection of reality. We're not talking about my denial,
we're
> >talking about your delusions.
>
> Yeah, just like the RP should recompensate the US for 'base improvements?'
> Talk about 'delusions,' and a lack of grasp on 'reality.' You took this
> exchange and dragged it well below any semblence of rational discourse.
But
> yes, "delusions" that fit you reality is what we are attempting to
ascertain
> here since it is "funny" and entertaining to boot.
You love to take things out of context and use them again and again, even
after I have explained what I meant in an exchange. My comment about the RP
compensating (not "recompensate" -- no such word) the US for base
improvements was obviously a rhetorical stance and not to be taken
seriously, because history has shown that few debts to the US are ever
repaid in full. What exactly did I say?
>You know, I think that the US should probably pay for cleaning up any toxic
>contamination in the RP bases. Just as soon as the RP compensates the US
>for the "tenant improvements". Any legal procedings against a former tenant
>would involve both from my experience.
My (admittedly limited) experience in civil litigation over property damage
involved the backing out of costs of improvements made by the defendent from
any award granted the plaintiff (see De la Campa v. Wyman, 1991). Thus my
statement in the third sentence is true and accurate, "from my experience".
Everyone in the world knows that such a thing would never happen -- it was
my way of saying, as I have elaborated many times, that this issue is being
addressed in a one-sided fashion, with the presumption that all blame falls
upon the USG and RPG, and that the plaintiffs are 100% in the right in their
claims and demands. I cannot assume that from the facts in evidence in the
news reports.
There is one determining factor here that no one has bothered to bring up --
I believe that the US will deal with the issue and settle with the people,
if for no other reason than Americans like to think of themselves as "the
good guys". No other nation acts out of the sense of guilt that the US
does, or a desire to appear like "good guys" in the eyes of the world.
People love to criticize the US for colonialism, treatment of "native
Americans", economic imperialism, etc., and we allow ourselves to be beat up
on these things. But history is full of examples of countries who have
unapolgetically practiced these and other things to an extreme the US has
never approached. Going back to the Bible, you have ethnic cleansing of
such an extreme nature that in the destruction of towns all men, women and
children were killed, no stone was left standing atop another, and fields
were sown with salt. US occupation of countries has been relatively benign
compared to other nations.
I do agree that to seriously expect the RPG to compensate the US for the
bases would be delusional and a denial of reality, but I never seriously
considered that because I do understand how these things work. That begs
the question of whether it is fair; I do not believe it is. I believe that
the costs of cleaning up the toxics would be small compared to the value
received in the bases. The bases were what we would call "fixer-uppers",
property received at substantially below market value because the prior
owner acknowledged that a lot of work should be done. I don't believe
anyone here would argue that the US had the responsibility to paint the
buildings before leaving; that level of "fixing up" is to be expected. Is
it so far fetched to hold the position that the reclamation of toxic areas
would also be in the provenance of the new owner? Given the nature of the
US' departure, could it not be argued that the RPG accepted the bases "as
is"?
These musings are all academic, as the case is obviously more complicated
than a mere real estate transaction, but they are still worthy topics for
thought and discussion. When one discusses US-RP relations, it should
involve some consideration of the US side as well as the RP side. Do not be
surprised if I make observations from the US perspective to balance out the
prevalent RP perspective quite naturally espoused by the majority here.
You take your disagreement with my positions, and distortions of what I say,
and claim I am dragging down this discussion below the level of rational
discourse. Just because you do not understand or accept the rationale
offered, does not mean it does not have merit. Just because you do not
understand or accept my reasoning does not make it irrational -- it may
point out intellectual shortcomings or tunnel vision on your part. Thus
your claim is rejected as fallacious and without merit.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #12
> Actually, it's a clear demonstration of your back-pedal in retrospect to
your
> initial opinion of this matter regarding Clark ...Or are you in a state of
> 'perpetual' denial over what you initially meant, and what you now mean?
> Shucks, after thousands of lines of exchange, you've meandered, weaved
'asides'
> and non-sequitured your position & in light of this reply is now even more
> convoluted than ever before. But let's unravel this cryptic mystery shall
we?
Again, how have I back-pedaled? Since I can go to my first posts and
demonstrate a consistent perspective and concern, whether you agree with
that or not, I am clearly not back pedaling. I have reiterated time and
again my position on the case. In denial over what I meant? This means
that you are saying that I did not mean what I wrote, that all my attempts
to clarify and explain exactly what I meant when I wrote it were lies, and
that you know my thoughts better than I do. That's a pretty big assumption
on your part! You have consistently said "What you meant by that was..."
rather than accept my words at face value in this thread, and the very
length of it is caused by my attempts to correct your false assumptions and
180 degree distortions. At some point you need to apply Occam's Razor.
What has kept me in this thread is the belief that you are an intelligent
person, and that if I can somehow puncture your presuppositions and
prejudice that force you to distort what I say you will find that we are
basically in disagreement over one issue -- the venue.
Your statement that I have back pedaled, in the light of clear evidence that
I have maintained my concerns from post one, is fallacious. The convoluted
nature of this exchange has resulted from the distortions you have made in
your exegesis of my "true meaning" from my words, and thus your claim that
this is my fault is false.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #13
> >No. Read my furry pink lips. IT IS THE WRONG VENUE. As I have said how
> >many times before?
>
> Hence, your clear opposition to the 'civil trial,' and class-action suit
filed
> against the US and RP gov't ...Not, may I add your unkempt disposition, eh
> Chewbacca? : )
Don't believe Chewy's lips were pink; this is a quote from "Stuart". To
fully appreciate it, hear the line read in Nathan Lane's voice.
And yes, my belief that the civil trial is the wrong venue is the source for
my opposition to it, all the while maintaining that it needs to be
adjudicated or settled on another level. You are saying that if I felt this
was the wrong venue I should nonetheless suport it? That is illogical.
Once again, the quote you started this thread with is in full support of my
position -- why try something in the wrong venue and possibly jeopardize
ongoing governmental negotiations?
Word usage aside: "unkempt" refers to appearance, not disposition. A better
insult would have been "your irascible disposition".
Let's look at a variety of reasons why I believe the civil venue is
improper:
1. We have no assurance that a sovereign nation can be sued by private
parties in litigation of this kind. This suit actually names 2 sovereign
states, one in which the suit has been filed. If you look at other
international efforts, such as the attempt to get Swiss insurers to pay
policies on Holocaust victims, a special international body was utilized or
convened (in this case, the International Commission on Holocaust Era
Insurance Claims).
2. An issue that has never been raised here -- if this is about justice, and
not just revenge, can the US hope to have a fair trial in the RP? Ignore
for a moment the capriciousness of the Philippine judicial system, cited as
one of the top 3 reasons foreign businesses pull out or refuse to establish
presence in the RP. Ignore what PP2 has recently posted about how the
Philippine Supreme Court itself rejected an appeal to limit Erap's powers
and instead chose to defend the President's wisdom, which might lead one to
question the objectivity and even wisdom of this august body. Instead,
consider how this case is fraught with currents of nationalism, resentment
of foreign colonization and military presence, and cannot help but be used
as a soap box and metaphor by any politician, group or civilian who can gain
access to the media. Can a dispassionate judge be found? Can an objective
jury be raised?
3. To pursue such litigation will involve millions in legal fees, expert
witnesses, depositions, etc. Where will this money come from? Does the
legal firm filing this have the resources to take on a protracted litigation
of this nature? Will they seek funding from outside sources, and if so,
what will be the agenda of those sources? If the attorneys cannot
demonstrate the financial wherewithal to advance on the case, what does this
say about their seriousness in pursuing it to adjudication versus seeking a
settlement before the horrendous costs are incurred? How much will
eventually get in the hands of the plaintifs?
4. This litigation may take decades to try and appeal. The RP Supreme Court
recently awarded the heirs of a 47-year-old teacher and his 11-year old
daughter who died on the Dona Paz a US$18,292 settlement after 12 years of
litigation (see http://www.imo.org/Library/cab/nov99cab.htm). That case was
simple compared to the Clark case.
5. While the $102 billion sought in the suit would not be the largest
settlement ever (that would be the $206 billion tobacco settlement, which
was not a court award), it would certainly represent the largest per
litigant settlement. Two figures are presented in press releases about the
lawsuit -- the first details a "potential" class action suit representing 29
actual victims and 4000 others who faced exposure. If the $102 billion was
imposed, this would net each plaintiff $26,309,257 before fees. The second
figure, which I take from a report of the actual suit filed, names 200
plaintiffs. Their award under the $102 b would be $510 million apiece.
Consider these amounts in relation to the settlement in the Dona Paz case of
$18,292 for 2 people. To further put it in perspective, the best estimate I
have been able to find of deaths related to smoking is 71 million from 1930
to 1999 in the US, Europe, England Russia and a few other first-tier nations
(it was noted that the death rates in poorer nations were lower, but figures
were not readily available). If we assume even 10 million of these were in
the US (current estimates range from 400,000 to 550,000 deaths a year in the
US), then the per-person settlement in this case was $206,000. From this,
can it be offered that the demand of the suit was out of proportion to US
standards, much less Philippine standards?
6. Assuming that the trial were held and the defendents were found guilty,
who would pay and how? You start off this thread with the question of
whether the US could be made to pay, but let us assume that is not an issue.
What of the other defendent, the RP government. If the court assigned even
a 90/10 USG/RPG liability split, this would leave the bill to the RPG of
$10.2 billion. What would such an award do to the Philippine economy?
Where would the money come from? I believe we can all agree that it would
not come from the pockets of the politicians, so it would come from funding
for desperately needed services, programs and infrastructure maintenance.
Is this really a desireable outcome?
You imply that there is something wrong with opposing a civil trial if I
believe it to be the wrong venue -- that's like saying I oppose using a
hammer when I feel a screw driver is more appropriate, but I should go ahead
and use the hammer anyway. Your logic simply ceases to exist in this
passage.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #14
> Oh no, Bastos Randy, it's all about how you meant what you said and the
> emphatic manner you've declared them (perceptions and asides):
Thus your entire argument depends upon your interpretation of what I say,
not the actual content of what I say. This is not logic, or rational
debate; this is assumption, presupposition and prejudice, and entirely
without merit in an intellectual discourse.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #15
> " How many health problems could have been avoided if they had been moved
> back then? Ever see the Disney movie "Tarzan", where one gorilla kid
> punches another with the second's fist, saying, "Stop hitting yourself.
> <punch> Stop hitting yourself <punch>"? Seems every one is blameless
> and has no responsibility except old Uncle Sugar ..."
>
> Hence your 'simian' inference to those who chose to stay at the CABCOM
> facility, which later you re-constructed into something that had something
> to do with one of your family members, yet another meandering 'aside,' err
> non-sequitur. But then again, the ridicule in and of those who where in
> the -context- of this exchange is undeniably clear.
This has already been dealt with, but since you see fit to repeat it in such
a demonstrably falacious manner, it should count against you again. This is
no more about simians than your reference to the 3 Stooges is about
middle-aged white guys with bad hair. It is about action, not the actors.
The beauty of illustrations is that they teach a lesson in a different
context that is perhaps entertaining and far enough removed from the reality
of the situation being discussed that the lesson can be learned in a more
dispassionate and non-threatening manner. Note how the illustration is
introduced and postscripted -- the first sentence talks about avoidance and
stopping the problem, the follow-up sentence points out how responsibility
should be shared, in whatever measure. To infer, as you do ad nauseum, that
I was making a direct insult of equating Filipinos to apes is absurd on the
face of it and requires that you suspend all reason and understanding of the
purpose of an illustration.
Your contention that this illustration means that I am equating Filipinos to
simians, and that I am ridiculing them is clearly false, misleading and
presumptuous.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #16
> >And when I defined "fallacy" and asked you to point out specific
examples,
> >you failed many times to respond. You cannot just say, over and over and
> >over and over again, that what I say is fallacious non sequiturs without
> >being specific. And being specific doesn't mean, "well you said this, but
I
> >really know you meant just the opposite, which is a fallacy."
>
> Heheheh ...I gave you a definition as to what a non-sequitur was, and that
> it is indeed a compositionall 'fallacy' in this exchange and debate. Yet
> you go on demanding that I 'define it' when you cannot see it's all right
> here, right now, as I exhibit it accordinly on this chronicle of a thread.
> And you know what that is Bastos Randy? Are you aware of what you are
> exhibiting here? It's strict-denial. Denial of your argumentative
fallacies;
> Denial of what you meant when you posted your initial contentions on this
> thread; Denial of my explicit 'definitions' of what your side of this
debate
> over Clark entails. And all you've done is 'deny' with a barrage of
> meandering parables, non-sequiturs ...And of course compositional &
> argumentative fallacies.
You see yourself as my intellectual superior and teacher, yet you miss the
point of instruction. A teacher does not hand back a paper to a student
unmarked and tell them, "You made many mistakes. You find them for
yourself." You fail to illustrate your broad insults and criticisms (i.e.,
my "argumentative fallacies), quoting back virtually the entire thread in
each post and telling me that my errors are all contained there and I should
be able to see them -- if I fail to see them, I am in denial.
Let's examine that reasoning. You assume a) that there are demonstrable
fallacies that any intelligent objective reader can discern and agree upon,
b) your interpretation of what I really mean when I say something different
is accurate, and c) my failure to agree with your assessment of my meanings
indicates denial, rather than simple disagreement.
Since you fail to list my "fallacies", instead telling me to look for them
throughout my writings, it becomes impossible to respond to your blanket
criticisms. I cannot be in denial of what you fail to elucidate. I am left
to guess what you consider "fallacies" and "non-sequiturs". I would guess
you are referring to my belief (supported by the quote that began this
thread) that a civil trial is not the proper venue. That is a legitimate
disagreement that *will never be proven one way or another*. Why? If a
civil trial actually goes to court, and the plaintiffs win, there is no
telling whether they will get as much as they might if another body
adjudicates the matter (say, an international tribunal, or negotiations
between states). If they lose a civil suit, that doesn't mean you were
wrong necesarilly, as the suit itself (as you have stated) may push
governments to come to an agreement. On the other hand, we will never truly
know what motivates the governments if there is a settlement; it may be
pressure from a civil suit, it may be pressure from environmental, human
rights or religious groups, or it might be Chelsea saying, "Daddy, what we
did in the Philippines isn't right." It could also come from the Filipina
White House physician, who bends the President's ear when she gives him a
vitamin injection. Is it a fallacy to state that rushing to judgement and
finding the US guilty based upon a few press reports is wrong? I don't deny
believing that, but I guess I do deny that believing that is wrong. Is it a
fallacy to state that there are a lot of ironies and inconsistencies in this
case? I don't deny believing that, and I leave it to you or anyone to prove
me wrong.
You would have me denying things that I say which you believe to be
demonstrably false but are, at best, simply differences in opinion. Should
I ignore my education, experience and intellect to just say my opinions are
wrong and yours are right? You give me a compelling reason to accept your
opinions and I will. So far, you haven't.
From my perspective, I see your obviously sincere belief that you are not
distorting things I say to fit in with your preconceptions to be denial. I
see your inability to admit that you made a mistake in trying to chastise me
for the wrong refinery as denial. But that's another fallacy...
Fallacy and non-sequitur #17
> My citation of your fallacies and non-sequiturs are nothing more than
> "distortions of what you say?" Heck, talk about 'denial,' e. How
> compelling is this declaration?:
>
> " I find this more than a bit ironic coming from a country that allows
> the Japanese to erect monuments to the brave fallen Japanese soldiers
> of WW2 who lost their lives killing, maiming, torturing, raping and
> enslaving Filipinos. But then, there was money involved in that
> transaction, too."
Where is the "fallacy" in this? Although you bring it up again below, the
facts are in evidence here.
1. The Philippines allowed the Japanese to erect monuments/group grave
markers in the RP.
2. The Japanese killed, maimed, tortured, raped and enslaved Filipinos
during the WW2 occupation (there was just a case reported in the SF
Chronicle of 2 Filipinos who sued Japanese companies who used them as slave
labor during the occupation - see
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/08/03
/MN28256.DTL). Read accounts of the Bataan death march; not only were US
and Filipino soldiers beaten, starved and killed, but any Filipinos along
the way who tried to assist the starving soldiers with food or water were
killed. Look at this picture of a Japanese soldier beheading a Filipino
(http://members.tripod.com/~amorsfx/index-2.html) for another example.
3. Monuments were erected. One, on Samar Island, honors both Americans and
Japanese who died in a battle off the coast (it was erected by a Japanese su
rvivor of the battle -- see
http://www.escortcarriers.org/bosamar/montpi.html). There is another, near
Davao, I believe, which the Japanese built as a memorial to the "futility of
war" that serves as a pilgrimage point for Japanese tourists, former
soldiers and kin of soldiers.
4. Money had to be involved. Not only for the purchase of land (can the
Japanese own land in the RP? I don't think so. So how was this land
purchased and titled?), but this being the Philippines I think it reasonable
to assume that some money changed hands, whether benignly for use in local
education or as bribes to the officials who had to OK the situation. I
can't prove it, but I certainly think it probable.
So where is the fallacy? Do you object to me pointing out something that
should be rather embarassing? Note that there are similar examples coming
out from WW2, notably in Italy where local citizens and US groups have set
up memorials to Allied soldiers on what was then enemy soil, but these are
usually supported by the community because they honor soldiers who drove out
the "occupying" German forces. While Italy was horribly devastated by the
Allies, our invasion and occupation is not on the same level as Japan, which
was not a signatory of the Geneva convention and felt there were no bounds
to how it waged war.
The relevance to my (however rudely) bringing up this bit of truth? Only
that I was pointing out the irony of treating the US as a criminal and
demanding awesome compensation for allegations of wrongdoing leading to a
few hundred illnesses and deaths while in many ways life is considered cheap
in the Philippines, and former enemies who slaughtered thousands are
apparently forgiven and even allowed to honor those who did the slaughter.
Your claim that my citing Japanese menorials/monuments in the Philippines is
a "fallacy" is clearly inaccurate and misleading. You may not like the
implications of my reference, and the ramifications may make you
uncomfortable, but it does not erase the existence and troubling meaning of
these markers.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #18
> Yeah, right. "Sheesh." Again, pls. take exceptional note of the delivery
> of this ...Especially, the under-current/tone in which you tendered it.
> The inference (ie. suggestion) regarding the Philippines and her people
> is pretty stark.
What is that inference? Again, you never come out and say what it is you
believe I am saying. Am I saying that Filipinos are inconsistent in the
way they handle matters of life and death? Yes, I am. Is that untrue? You
may not want to believe it is, but the evidence shows that life is cheaper
in the RP than in some other countries. By that I mean that fewer
protections are taken to safeguard the safety of individuals, especially
children. Am I saying that there is an inconsistency in how people go after
compensation for injury or death in the RP depending upon how deep the
pockets of the accused are? Yes, I am. I used the example in this thread
of how the multiple ferry tragedies, resulting in horrific loss of life,
have not been pursued in the same manner as the Clark people. I do not
recall civil suits in the billions against the ferry owners. In fact, the
wrongful death settlement against the owners of the Dona Paz (about $9,146 a
person on the two we know of) is a far cry from the $510 million per person
sought in the Clark litigation.
In light of your failure to elaborate on just what you believe my pejorative
"inference" or "suggestion", leaving me no chance to clearly rebut your
opinion, I can only classify this statement as argumentative and
prejudicial, without foundation.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #19
> Just remember, t'was you who raised the "race" card, and the "religion"
> card in an effort to draw others into this exchange. IOW - Baiting. And
> how it got to the point where you believe that I feel you are a racist
> is of your own cocoction, not mine. But let's get to this civil-rights
> thingy ...Heheheheh you were part of the 'movement' when Lincoln signed
the
> 'Emancipation Proclamation?' Whow! You are indeed wiser beyond your years,
> if not decrepit in your approach to the argument and point of order here,
Bastos.
Now here is a particularly interesting referent. You state that I am saying
I was part of the civil rights movement when Lincoln signed the Emancipation
Proclamation, when what I said was "I was involved in the civil rights
movement before you were born. " Thus you are saying you were born before
the 1860s? I really don't think so.
Now, back to the "race" and "religion" cards. You claim not only that I
brought these into the discussion, but did so to draw others into this
exchange. To begin with, my "raising" the race card was to say that, aside
from your being a Filipino I did not think you had much more connection to
the people and events at Clark than I did. That was a MINIMIZING of the
race issue (had I been raising race as an issue, I would have said that this
gave you a solid connection with the Clark folks). Thus you completely
misunderstood the racial referent and now seek to say I am bringing this
into racial politics.
I brought up "religion" in an unrelated story -- at the time, we were
discussing Compuserve and getting together with internet friends. It was
off topic, and the posts contain no references to the Clark issue. Thus I
did not bring up religion in this argument about toxics in Clark. Indeed,
you were the one who cross-referenced this into the Clark discussion.
As to your claim that I was trying to draw others into this exchange... why
would you possibly say that? Is this a technique that younger folks use
(like trolling or baiting)? It's certainly not something a mature adult
does. Think through why I would WANT anyone else in the thread? Who was I
appealing to? Was I trying to draw fire from religious conservatives to add
to your attacks on my opinions about Clark? Was I trying to get the racists
in on my side to "help" me in my racist attack?
The thing that, more than anything, demonstrates that you misinterpret my
intent is that no one else here did interpret my statements as racist or
religiously offensive because there are many who would jump in against me if
they thought that was my intent.
Don't judge me by the childish techniques teens and such use. Adults find
"trolling", flaming, torching, etc., a waste of time. These are things that
give a feeling of power (without any real consequences) to young people who
have no real power in their real lives. In a large part, this is macho
chest-pounding ("don't get me mad, or I'll flame you and I am a master at
that."). As you grow older, have more responsibilities and power in real
life, such empty posturing has no appeal and simply appears foolish.
Your claims that I raised the race and religion cards in this debate are
false. The inference that I did so to bait others to get involved is false.
Your statement that you were born before the Emancipation Proclamation is
more bizarre than anything else.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #20
> Hehehehe ...Oh what the heck, this matter is not as 'black and white' as
you
> might narrowly think, for there is grey matter as well. It's not about the
> struggle of those who are OTW becoming more than just third, or second
class
> citizens. It's about people in Clark seeking compensation in the only
venue
> that was available to them at the time. And if you took my pursuit and
> inquiries as to why you would raise the 'racial' aspect of those involved
> in this case as a means by which to declare that you are a racist, you
> are once again painfully incorrect. For you see, Bastos, therein once
again
> lays yet another fallacy in your argumentative tact here. And simply
> remember how you delineated the 'color' of this exchange ...It's all right
> here ...Nothing omitted ...Nothing left out. Yet, in light of my 'lil
> Anti-Non-Sequitur-Troll-Busting-script.sh(tm) I find it ironic that you'd
miss
> this altogether.
You are the only one who has ever mentioned color in this debate (remember y
our silly "US=white, RP=brown"?). Race is not an issue at all here, except
in your mind. Culture, politics, economics, resentment, envy,
irresponsibility, nationalism and a whole lot of other factors are involved
on both sides of the issue, but race is not one of them.
You believe that this is "about people in Clark seeking compensation in the
only venue that was available to them at the time". While that is not true
(there have been ongoing discussions of the issue since before the US
withdrawal, so at least one other venue was available), it is fair to say
that this is about your OPINION that this was the only venue available while
I disagree. Matter of opinions, not of "black and white" right and wrong
you make it out to be. Thus your claim about what this debate is over is
false.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #21
> >Just because what I say does not match what you think I believe does not
> >mean I am dissembling. It means you are not that bright.
>
> Yeah, I'm not as 'bright' as you, but I can at least read the words you
ryte : )
There is a big difference between reading and comprehending. You may read
my words, but then you distort them along lines that fit your prejudices.
This is not comprehension, nor is it communicating. When you read:
>And no, I am not saying the RP is a
>Shakespearean tragedy!
You interpreted it as:
>here is the actual quote I conveyed in reply to your suggestion
> that the nature of the Philippines is some sort of "Shakespearean
tragedy!"
That's not reading, Dom. That's not comprehending. Thus you may claim you
"read" the words I write only in the visual recognition and phonetic sense,
but not in the sense of comprehending them.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #22
Your responses in this thread have left me with a puzzle: Why is someone so
obviously intelligent, and whose posts I enjoy on a wide range of topics, so
consistently intent on misunderstanding what I write and insulting me for
his misinterpretations? I have had to rule out that you are offended by my
less-than-orthodox approach to religion, as you have willingly slandered
Catholics priests in this thread. You should not be offended because you
(eroneously) believe I do not support any just settlement of the Clark
issue, as you have no real connection with these people and are in fact an
American citizen. It leaves me with the question of why you are so vehement
and prejudiced against me and everything I say. Is it a race thing? Have
you been treated poorly by Americans in Oakland and wherever you have lived
in the US? Have I become some kind of trophy in your mind, that you must
best me no matter what logical convolutions, false statements and
misrepresentations it takes? Maybe it's just vanity or hubris, and possibly
you are not even aware of what is motivating you here. I threw out some
ideas of your apparent jealousy (for your posts do have a jealous tinge to
them, a need to somehow prove yourself better than me). If my half-serious
mention of our wive's respective comliness was offensive, then I appologize.
The point was -- what is pushing you in this? What demons are behind your
out-of-character vitriol and distortions?
If you want to pass here as older than you are (say 25 or older), remember
what I said about the bragging about flames. The "You don't want to get me
started" posturing is a teenage holdover, and a dead giveaway. Just as in
real life the really tough people don't have to brag about it (why warn
someone about how tough you are when you will show them in the next few
seconds?), the really horrific flamer needs not brag about his dubious
skill -- such people are known and dismissed by others of a more mature
outlook.
Am I obsessed with my "Bastos Kano" moniker? Actually, in most posts I
think you will find I am rather polite and considerate of all things
Filipino. It's not a pretentious handle (say, like one in Latin) and it
makes it instantly clear that I am a Kano in this NG, something some people
hide. I have made my web site known, as well as my last name (it was even
the subject of a joke by someone who will remain nameless lest I be accused
of "trolling" for his support), so I am hardly anonymous. I would say that
more than anyone here, possibly excepting Steven Roach, I am an open book to
all here who wish to know more. You can even read my resume online if you
wish, as well as hear my voice. Anonymous? Another false assertion, Dom.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #23
> >So demonstrate ONE fallacy. Just ONE.
>
> Most recently, your desire to draw a discussion with regard to our own
> respective families here, when of course you've been employing them as
> bait in this exchange. Not the best way to argue a matter over Clark, eh?
You clearly don't understand what a fallacy is. Whether you choose a
definition of fallacy as a false statement or as an apparently plausible
argument using false or invalid inference, it simply doesn't apply to my
raising the question of why you are so intent on distorting what I say and
are so obsessed with me. This is a legitimate question, and posing possible
answers does not constitute false inference. If someone is truly puzzled
about why something is happening, they are not uttering fallacies if they
list off some possible reasons. Thus your statement above is false.
What you fail to grasp in this whole argument is that I am not spending so
much time responding on issues about Clark but to your unfathomable
distortions and deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said to try to
make me appear to believe things I do not, and which are not evidenced in my
statements. This is only tangentially about Clark at this stage; it is
about you and your diatribes, insults, and the violence you do to my ideas.
Your flames cannot hurt me, but if you convince just one person that I
espouse an idea I do not you ARE injuring me in this community of ideas. I
have no problem with people disagreeing with me, or disliking me because of
positions I take, but I want them to dislike me for the right reasons. You
do violence to my ideas, and that must be addressed.
I have never been one to respond to taunts like "Your mother is ... (fill in
the blank)." Some people take immediate umbrage to such statements -- "You
can't talk about my mother (or wife or whatever) that way!" The truth is
that the insulter does not really mean what he says, he is just trying to
evoke a response. If you respond, then he has won, and he has demonstrated
power over you. No kid in school knew whether my mother wore combat boots
(she didn't, although she wore hiking boots). Why would their saying so
bother me? Insults intended to provoke should be answered with silence or
some other form of address other than what the insulter seeks, just to rob
them of their victory.
But do violence to my ideas by deliberately misrepresenting them in an
attempt to sway others to believe I hold positions different than what I
hold, and I will respond. I don't want you or anyone to spread lies about
my beliefs.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #24
> >And it is time consuming to me to have to rehash this. At the speed I
type,
> >it takes a long time to respond. What that has to do with tolerance and
> >patience ...oh, I see, just another childish scchoolboy insult. Got it.
>
> No, just 'reality,' Bastos. Pls. do get a grip.
For once you snipped something, and it was the most relevant item. When I
read your response above I had to go back and find the reference because
your words, lacking context, were enigmatic. What I found was that you had
said, in response to my saying this argument was time consuming:
> But this is not as 'time consuming' as you might believe, Bastos.
> A little 'timing,' time-management,
> tolerance and a whole lot of patience is what is required, which evidently
> you lack and have demonstrated accordingly.
To which I responded as above, and you told me that you were simply pointing
out reality, and that I needed to get a grip on it.
You are stating that this thread has not been time consuming. Perhaps if
you took the time to read and think before responding, you would find it
takes more time. This response I am working on has taken me several hours
(much of it sorting through your regurgitation of quotebacks to get to your
new comments). You lecture me that "timng" is required... what does that
mean? In this context, it is gibberish, words to fill the screen. How
would "timing" cut down on the amount of time I spend reading and
responding? Nonsensical, as I said. On to "time management". As amusing
as it is for the owner of a 7/365 business to be told by a young entry-level
IT employee that time management is called for, time management has no
impact upon the actual conduct of this argument. Time management will not
allow me to read faster, write faster or proof faster. The term "patience",
which is humorously diametrically opposed to your notions of "timing" and
"time management", is similarly inappropriate here. When I state that this
process is time consuming, you say I need more patience. Patience allows
one to put up with long processes, it does not shorten them. Your
conclusion that I lack time management skills is a double whammy -- if I
lacked the skills, I would be unable to post, thus the fact that I post even
though it takes me a long time to formulate my responses indicates I must
have both patience and time management skills.
THAT is reality, and my grip is just fine, thank you.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #25
> >Show me what other legal steps have been taken. Is this a "last ditch"
> >effort? Your injection of the Simpson trial is a non sequitur and
> >misleading. When was the criminal trial here, and what were the results?
> >Lousy argument, Dom.
>
> Speaking of non-sequiturs, it was you who raised issue/aside with regard
> to the Simpson trial ...Yeah, the strict-denial is kicking in big time
> now : )
Dom, read how I "injected" the Simpson trial:
>The more I read about this, the more I agree that there
>is a connection (not that I ever thought there wasn't -- I just believed
>that it hadn't been adequately demonstrated, and that people with anti-US
>perspectives were accepting as the conclusions of the plaintiffs not
because
>of science but because of philosophy. That's what the OJ jury did, and I
>don't think that's justice)
Not relevent? I am stating that the OJ jury went into the trial prejudiced
against the prosecution and disinclined to believe the "mountain of
scientific evidence" presented. I brought it up because that is the way I
percieve the assumptions of some people in this NG of the complete validity
of the claims in the civil case at Clark. While you have acknowledged
that we should get the facts in the case, you mind is plainly made up before
any investigation or trial. That is "pre-judging", which is what jurrors in
the OJ trial admitted doing. Thus my illustration was bang on. You then
turn around and say that the Simpson trial proves this civil venue is
viable, because wasn't that what got OJ? It doesn't, because the civil suit
was an afterthought after a criminal trial failed to get the justice the
families sought. There is no direct parallel as you would claim, simply
because the civil venue is the first active public prosecution of the case.
Once again, Dom, false conclusions and erroneous conjecture.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #26
> For nearly ten (10) years, nothing was done since the departure of the
> US military there. And now, when the problem has been brought to the
> forefront of attention, do we dismiss civil suit? In your opinion, 'yes.'
> Funny how all of a sudden the venue of diplomacy between the RP and US
> is conveniently a viable one (after nearly a decade), when in fact both
> are named defendants in this : )
You assume that nothing was done. What you really mean is that you have not
seen results. Need I remind you of the 12 years the families of the Dona
Paz victims worked their way through the courts? Even civil procedures can
take decades (think of the "comfort women" and Filipino slave labor cases
still going on almost 60 years later).
Convenience is not an issue here. What is just, what is effective, and what
will bring about the best results is the issue. Do I believe the
governments should be put under pressure? Sure. Do I believe this civil
trial is the best method? No. We have seen a great deal of activity not
related to the civil trial (in fact, the lawyers probably got the idea for
the civil trial from this agitation) from religious, environmental and human
rights groups. To this end, I see the civil suit not as a prime mover in
this case but as a reaction to the increasing attention brought to the issue
on a variety of fronts. My guess is that even the various whistle-blowing
groups are not in 100% accord with the civil suit because it fails to
address the core problem -- forcing the cleanup of the toxics. It is about
victim compensation and punitive damages, not rectifying the problems.
Another reason I cannot support the civil suit. Any solution should include
reclamation of the toxics as well as compensation, as I have said from about
my 2nd post on.
Thus your assertions above are false on several accounts.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #27
> Don't you need some sort of credential, or even license for that? Don't
> patronize me. And inasfar as making yourself 'look bad,' remember you
> are Bastos Kano, and you don't need any help from me. But what is
> 'buiying?' Is that like building-buying the same property? Mebbe my
> VI text editor is flaking on me since upgrading my 'processor' ...Lemme
> check.
Dom, I leave the patronizing to you. You just didn't think about this one.
Do you know anyone who has bought a house? Did they have to get a license
or credential to do so? Ever know anyone who sold a house or piece of
property? Did they have to get a license? As I said, I have been buying
and selling property for years -- not as an agent for someone else (which
would require a license, I'm sure) but as a private party. Once again, your
zeal to "expose my fallacies" has lead you into making a rather silly
eroneous conclusion.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #28
> Oh? Hheheheh ...And while that was funny, let's consider this emphatic
> declaration of your's:
>
> "I was trained and served as a preacher for years ..."
>
> Unless you are Methusula, Dracula or some other immortal, I'd just as soon
> assume it was for a 'for the most part of your life,' Bastos. But heck,
the
> 'distortion' as to what you were trying to convey, and thus establish
whatever
> relative point to the exchange has been noted ..."For years" : )
Another rather silly assumption, Dom. If I say, "I was in elementary school
for many years", does it mean "for the most part of your life"? How many is
"many years"? It will depend upon your age. An 80-year-old may think of 20
years as a short period of time, while to a 22-year- old it's almost the
whole ball game. You are great at making assumptions, then criticising me
when your assumptions are false. You simply cannot acknowledge your errors,
and take your lumps like a man. Because you assumed that "many" meant "most
of my life" you accuse me of "distortion". How many is many? Would 7 years
qualify? I started my seminary training in 1977, and am still ordained and
perform the occasional wedding or funeral. Does that qualify as "many"?
As you get older, years start to run together and it is not always so easy
to talk about specifics. Was that 5 or 6 years ago? Did I do that for 8 or
10 years? I'd have to go to my resume to see the years I did certain things
or how long I held certain positions. It's the product of a full life.
Here's another thought for a computer whiz -- ever heard of multitasking? I
have done several things at the same time during my life. I ran an
educational game company and a security company at the same time (I was the
only employee of each for "a number" of years). Coding 12 hours a day and
working perhaps 20 hours a week on my security consulting business gave me
the right to put both on my resume for overlapping periods. I don't live my
life in a serial, predictable fashion; in grad school I worked full time on
both a masters and a doctoral program at different schools at the same time.
And since I started college at 15, I was able to squeeze more into my early
years than people usually do.
The distortion is in your mind, not my words. Chalk up another fallacy for
Dom...
Fallacy and non-sequitur #29
> >I have no need to debate with JT. I find him an intelligent and
> >entertaining fellow who is not afraid to say what he means in the face of
> >determined opposition. The above was my attempt to humourously extricate
> >myself froma thread that I saw no positive experience for me in (think:
all
> >of Dom's insults, lies and distortions and the sleep they've cost me in
> >replies). You will find that at times I refer to myself as stupid,
although
> >I'm not, lazy, although I'm not, etc. I believe you cut out the obviously
> >hyperbolic reference to drugs and cough syrup (a line I use from Bill
> >Murray's "Stripes" movie a lot, although I don't do drugs or drink).
>
> What you do with regard to 'drugs' or 'drink' should go without saying,
> but if you feel that you must atone for it out here. What the heck,
> I'm open to non-sequiturs. Yet with regard to JT, aw shucks you need
> not drop his name here to 'extricate' yourself from. And besides, I
> thought you've been enjoying yourself here. Ah, yet another fallacy.
>
> SCF Rule #5: Don't troll others to fight your battles for you.
Hunh? I say I don't do drugs or alchohol, pointing out that my reply to JT
was humorous, and you respond with "you feel you should atone for it out
here." Again I say, Hunh? I should atone for NOT doing drugs or alchohol?
Okaaaaaayyyyyy. I guess bringing it up to underscore how my response to JT
was lighthearted is atonement in your mind. If you say so, Dom...
And once again, what is this nonsense about trolling others to fight my
battles for me? You must enlighten me on this tactic, since I haven't
needed anyone to fight my battles for me since I was 16 or so. Does this
mean that anytime you mention someone's name you are invoking their
presence? (Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!) That means that every
time you have mentioned someone (PP2, Tanso, Manong Ben, DSP) you are trying
to get them to fight your battles? I never thought so, but if you insist.
Seems pretty childish.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #30
> >Just because you believe that the "gold mine" of the bases should be
> >uncompensated and unappreciated does not mean I believe so. If I believe
> >that there should be some cooperation between those who receive the
benefits
> >of the bases (whether private companies or the RPG) and the US, it is not
a
> >non sequitur nor a fallacy. Whether it is legally, economically or
> >realistically feasible is not at issue, nor do the difficulties posed by
> >those factors make my opinion fallacious.
>
> Yet, the emphatic manner in which you declared this 'conditional' criteria
> for the CLEAN UP of the base(s) was indeed fallacious. And to deny this
> ...Well, we are clear on where the propensity for that lays.
Everything in life is conditional. Just because you do not accept that does
not mean it is wrong. You wish for me to state that I believe the sole
responsibility for the toxic clean-up should be on the US, given the nature
of the agreements on the bases, the value the bases represent to the
economy, and how toxic clean-up is generally handled in the private sector?
Can't do it. There's no denial involved, I just don't believe it is fair.
The toxic clean-ups I am most familiar with are those involving the sale of
land from Chevron (*not* Tosco!) in Richmond. Two parcels come to mind in
particular -- both were "tank farms", where leaky above-ground tanks
contaminated the soil. When the property was sold, it became the problem of
the developer to handle the contamination. In one case (a development of
700 homes under construction today off Richmond Parkway near the Richmond
Golf Course) it took about 12 years of delays before the developer could
come up with the wherewithal to satisfy the EPA. In the other case, down in
Point Richmond, construction has come to a standstill because the developer
cannot find a company to guarantee the reclamation for a reasonable amount
of money. But, you say, these have no relevance to the Clark case. The US
did not sell the land, yadda yadda. Yet given the nature of the exodus of
the USG from the bases, one could maintain that the RPG accepted these bases
"as is, with no implied warranties" unless there were specific requirements
that the US clean up contaminatrion before leaving. I have not seen
anything to that effect here or in the press.
One thing you should understand is that we are breaking new ground here
legally and diplomatically. There are no real clear precedents, and thus
all parties involved must look at "similar yet different" cases and
precedents for instruction. This is one reason that this needs to be
handled between governments, because the legal ground is so fraught with
perils whether you seek a civil or criminal venue. There are so many areas
for appeals, and it is doubtful that a court would even presume to have
jurisdiction over the case. I can see lower courts refusing to hear it and
letting it go on fast track to the RP Supreme Court. If they are so
influenced by the executive branch as PP2's recent posts indicate, how do
you think they would rule on a civil suit?
Your denouncement of my opinion that the USG, the RPG and/or civilian
contractors who will utilize the bases have shared responsibility
(percentages to be determined -- maybe 90/5/5, maybe 50/25/25 -- who knows?)
is simply your opinion, and does not indicate my belief is fallacious.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #31
> >You mean as an expat Pinoy like yourself? I believe I've mentioned him
once
> >or twice here -- do you consider that alot? They were appropriate places.
> >I've mentioned PP2 more often, does that mean anything?
>
> Who knows. I see that your are trying to troll-bait him into this foray
> as well. But we'll see, you just might be on to something here 'tho : )
See Fallacy and non-sequitur #29 above.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #32
Randy wrote:
> >>>1. Did the RP allow these grave markers or monuments to be erected, or
did
> >>>the Japanese do it without any form of governmental permission? The
fact is
> >>>that the RP allowed these markers to be placed. Yes?
> >>>
> >>>2. Money was involved. Money to buy the land, to get approval, to lobby
> >>>local and national politicians. Yes?
> >>>
> >>>My inference was, as stated above, that I consider it ironic that there
is
> >>>such animosity directed against the US for the Clark toxics and any
human
> >>>suffering related to this, yet time has allowed the horrors of Japanese
> >>>occupation (which I'm sure you will agree were of an order of magnitude
> >>>greater -- something like 15-18,000 US and Pinoy soldiers, plus
"collateral
> >>>civilians", died in the Bataan death march alone) to be diminished to a
> >>>point where some honor can be granted to these invading soldiers.
Dom responded
> >>Point One (1.) Yes.
> >>
> >>Point Two (2.) Yes, perhaps. Maybe. I'm not really sure what was
involved
> >>in that regard
> >>
> >If you agree with my facts, do not say it is falllacious. If you believe
> >that these facts reflect poorly upon the Filipino people, that is your
call.
> >I was pointing out an irony, which you called a non sequitur and fallacy.
> >Now you agree it was not fallacious. Bit by bit I'm forcing you into
> >retracting your false claims and insults, but then you spin away and say,
> >"Well, the way you said it was insulting." Is there a way to say that
life
> >is cheap in the RP, or that corruption often overrides other values,
without
> >being insulting? If there is to be positive change in the RP, there has
to
> >be honest acceptance of the pros and cons of the culture without people
> >getting hostile and defensive.
>
> Oh come now, Bastos Randy. In reality, I disagreed 100% over what you
> inferred with regard to the 'Japanese graves,' and what you suggested,
> regardless of the meandering manner in which you wish to distort your
> initial contention. And again, you're never short on words and you are
> usually direct and to the point on things, so how can this ever be
possibly
> misconstrued?
Dom, you said "yes" to both my statements of facts, then you turn around and
say "In reality, I disagreed 100% over what you inferred." I guess I can
buy that. You acknowledge that the monuments exist, but believe that it
does not reflect negatively on Filipinos that the Japanese were allowed to
erect them.
My point, as explained above, is that I cannot overlook the irony of
allowing a hated former enemy erect monuments which can be construed as
honoring those who destroyed thousands of lives, yet an ally who has
demonstrably done some good and will continue to do some good (along with
whatever bad you wish to lay at the feet of the USG) is demonized. I find
similar irony that the Supreme Court of the Philippines can determine that
$9000 is proper compensation for a child's lost life, yet you think $510
million per person is a resonable compensation because the US was involved.
My ironic observations as an outsider may not be any more palatable than
your 3 Stooges comparison to Filipinos, but that does not change the fact th
at I have a right to my opinion, and it is indeed based upon real events.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #33
> >>>Yes, it was off topic -- I had no idea that this would drag on. It was,
in
> >>>part, my attempt to set aside any acrimony regarding the Clark topic
(which
> >>>I thought had been taken about as far as it could go here... little did
I
> >>>know!). Perhaps you are being unintentionally insulting with your
statement
> >>>that others here are more "intimate" with their faith than I am;
perhaps you
> >>>meant to say "are more sensitive to jokes being made about their
faith".
>
> >>So be it. And I still believe it might have been ROFL hilarious if one
had
> >>been there, and who knew you personally and of the circumstances around
> >>this get together.
>
> >We've agreed on this weeks ago. Why do you keep wasting badnwidth on it?
>
> Talk about strict-denial ...Are you're -not- a party to this too? : )
No. I am not the one who keeps bringing it up. You are. If I don't
respond, you accuse me of "failing to rebut". Catch 22. Your claim that
this is "strict-denial" (whatever that means) is not called for by the facts
and is thus spurious reasoning.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #34
> >>Reference? You want references? Let's take all of your quotes that I've
> >>cited, put them all together, and start all over again! Whaddya say?
Let's
> >>parse them accordingly and scuttle what we've established to this point
and get
> >>to the 'negligence' in and of them. Okey?
>
> >In other words, you can't come up with anything concrete. That's been
your
> >tactic all along.
>
> This thread is imbued with 'reference,' and in your own words as well.
Heck,
> if you can't see them, 'it's not my fault.'
You are repeating yourself. See Fallacy and non-sequitur #16 above.
Handing someone a book and saying "the answers are all in there" is not
debate of even intelligent discourse.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #35
> >You speak for all Filipinos here quite easily. I, however, don't believe
> >you speak for a majority or I wouldn't waste my time here. Funny how you
> >are the first in 8 months to say there is something about my handle that
> >would "stir people up." Saying that is does, my friend, is a fallacy.
>
> I believe I stated early on that, I don't speak for most, if not -all- the
> Filipinos out here on this Filipino-newsgroup. But as a Filipino, with
> Filipino experiences, upbringing and nuances, 'doncha think my , my
inferences,
> my deductions, my observations, and above all my opinions as a Filipino is
> warranted? And in terms of "stirring people up" ...Get with the program,
> "Bastos Kano," your not living up to your pseudo - In fact, you are
becoming
> quite ...How do I say this politely? ...Boring, as this thread has become?
You quote back hundreds of lines, but snip that which debunks your argument
here. My response above was to your statement:
> Well, coining the psuedo "Bastos Kano" does stir images and does play upon
> the imagination of many Filipinos in, for the most part, a Filipino-forum,
> would 'stir people up,' wouldn't you say?
Why snip that out? This is what this particular discussion is about -- your
claim that my pseudonym "does stir images" and "does play upon the
imagination of many Filipinos". What images are we speaking of here, Dom?
What is going on in your imagination? As I have stated many times, there
are a number of reasons for my pseudonym, even though I sign my posts with
my real name as you do - one of them is to be honest about my nationality so
all my words can be read knowing that perspective. It does make a
difference. A week or so ago a regular poster had to say "If you a
Filipino... if you are not Filipino...". The fact that I self-describe
myself as rude? Hey, I speak my mind and I fart in bed. Even my son says
"Bastos!" when I fart. Not exactly diabolical images to conjure with, eh?
Should we make a big deal out of people's pseudonyms here? That could lead
to some interesting exchanges. Some are humorous, some are pretentious,
some are offensive, some are simply descriptive. Some post under several
names, trying to keep that a secret; some play a game with pseudonyms,
expecting people to know who they are.
If you are prejudiced against Kanos, then my handle (as well as my presence,
or the presence of any non-Filipinos, in this NG) will evoke negative
reactions. I hope most take it as it is intended, a declaration of my
nationality and a little self deprecation to show I don't take myself or
life too seriously. Since you are the first to indicate that Filipinos
respond to it negatively, in the absence of supporting argumentation I will
assume that this is your personal opinion and not representative of the
deductions, observations and opinions of others in this NG. If I was
convinced that people here I respect found the name offensive or even
distracting (and it wasn't simply prejudice against Kanos) I would have no
problem with changing it. I'm not *that* bastos!
Your contention that being a Filipino, with experiences and upbringing and
nuances, makes you a good judge of whether my name is intentionally divisive
is false. To begin with, this presupposes that those experiences give you
some mantle of authority as a spokesman for Filipinos. The diversity of
opinions expressed here on a daily basis indicates that to claim this is
either delusion or arrogance. I cannot think of any topic where the
majority of Filipinos here agree, which is one reason I like the place -- I
can see a lot of different opinions from people in a variety of life
situations who have varying connections with the Philippines.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #36
> Whoa. No need to go into a tizzy-fit Bastos Randy, just stick to the point
> of order and we'll get along just fine. Now where wuz I? Oh yeah, that's
> right, it was you who illustrated that you are indeed sensitive to other
> peoples perception of you out here - Yet, you put it in terms of something
> along the lines of 'real life.' And now you have the audacity to spout
> or even suggest that there might be a tinge of 'reality' imbued here?
Whow!
> I'm impressed! Your dichotomy in and of this is really out there. And
> BTW - What you are alluding to, & in what I shared (pls. note the title
> of this aspect of the thread) was not so much just a 'flame' but a death
> threat posted on this newgroup ...Or are you trying to diminish the
gravity
> of that was well by simply ignoring it? Are you ridiculing the sagacity
> and competence of those who were planning to attend this event at Lake
> Elizabeth in '98? Hmm.
>
I don't know the specifics of this Lake Elizabeth event, so can only make
some observations.
1. If someone made death threats, he/she was breaking the law.
2. I assume that you reported this to the authorities, who could probably
penetrate his identity even if he used an anonymous remailer (those located
within the US would cooperate fully with the law, and many of those located
outside the US are fronted by intelligence and police organizations in an
effort to detect terrorist email; most others would cooperate with the
police in their local state for many reasons). I assume the person was
apprehended and prosecuted.
3. Once a threat had been established on this NG, those who would have been
interested could have made plans through email. Some lurkers might have
been excluded, but a known group of people could have gotten together. It
might not have been the wide-open invitation a NG allows but it would have
meant you could have hooked up with JT or whoever else was in the States.
Am I ridiculing the sagacity of those who were planning this? I can't
answer that, because I don't have all the facts, but I suspect something of
a more limited nature could have worked out. Has nothing to do with
sagacity, but common sense and creativity. For all I know the ugliness of
the scene made all involved not interested any more.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #37
> Yet, the malevolence just beneath the surface of your rebut does indeed
> illustrate yet another 'aside' to the what and why you continue with this
> exchange. And of course this isn't 'real life,' but rather a surreal
> rendition of reality itself, and I being nothing more than 'a pigment of
your
> vivid imagination,' diba Bastos?
You are referring to my pointing out that flames are not destructive
(granted, in the most part -- most people who go on tabloid talk shows don't
kill each other in the real world, but some do). That is my opinion.
Simple flames and name calling do not affect me; they may prevent me from
logging on to a particular NG, but that won't really impact my life. People
who believe that they have power because they like to flame are simply
deluding themselves, in my mind. Where is the malevolence in that? Now you
have me being evil, spiteful and hateful because I dismiss your belief that
flames have a real power. Not malevolence but frustration at such childish
thinking.
Positive and truthful statement #1
> >A whole paragraph that I can enjoy and agree with. Good info to know.
>
> Just for you.
Snide, but just about the only honest and non-distortred thing you say in
this post.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #38
> >>Heck, priests, preachers et. al. do indeed 'pontificate,' they
> >>'meander' and are not above 'fallacies and non-sequiturs,' too,
> >>but in the context of this exchange between you and I, it's indeed
> >>fitting, has this thread cause you to take irreversable leave of
> >>your sense of humor? B^)
>
> >Funny. You criticize my sense of humor, then ask me why I can't take the
> >things you write in jest in the tone they are intended. You have spent
> >thousands of words telling me how my tone overwhelms my content, then you
> >want me to ignore your tone. You insult me continually, then say,
> >"Wassamata, Bastus, can't you take a joke?"
>
> Heck, I'd like to think that I've been pretty jovial to this point : )
I think jovial is a bit of a reach. Jovial doesn't involve constant
insults, condescention, arrogance, lies and distortions. Yes, I think
jovial is not the right word for your demeaner here.
The underlying fallacy that you don't address is your assertion that I do
not have a sense of humor as you insult me, distort my words and make
eroneous assumptions about my beliefs. You insult, then criticize "Can't
you take a joke?" Perhaps, like in so many other things, our sense of humor
is not the same. I find your "humor" mean spirited and petty, at least when
it comes to me in this thread. Not much to laugh about when falsely accused
of everything from lying to ignorance.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #39
> >That, I admit, was a trap I knew you would walk into. The WORDING of an
> >illustration does not equate to the argument the illustration supports.
The
> >words of an illustration do not necesarilly reflect the issues; if I told
a
> >story about a man with a wooden leg in connection with a discussion of
the
> >dangers to California wine growers of a certain pest, the wooden leg
would
> >have no relevence to the wine growers, but is self-referential to the
story.
> >You, on the other hand, would say that I am claiming all wine growers
have
> >wooden legs, and how can I spout such fallacies?
>
> Only when you omit my rebuts and then 'spout' a fabrication to the
contrary
> ...And again, that wasn't very sporting of you, but my trusty Anti-Non-
> Sequitur-Troll-Busting-script(tm) is quite a match for whatever impotent
> "trap" you set out here, Bastos ;-)
Don't want to abuse the word through frequent use, but "Hunh?" My point
that you confuse the actors of an illustration with the action and moral
leads you to say that I ignore your rebut and "spout" a fabrication to the
contrary? The point is that you are free to use illustrations without
expecting people to take them literally (see 3 middle aged white guys with
bad hair). WHen PP2 made a joke about a Filipino caddy and an arrogant,
stupid racist white guy (are there any other kind?), was he saying all
Filipinos are caddys? Of course not; he was saying I was a racist prick
(maybe he really feels that way, maybe he was simply trying to tell me he
thought my thinking was way off base in this one case; I prefer to accept
the more benign interpretation unless notified otherwise). But you feel
free to make literal associations between my illustrations openly ignoring
the point of the illustration. I'm not sure if that is hypocritical,
ignorant or simply another example of how prejudice can blind someone so he
only sees what he thinks he will see. You can look across a parture and see
the placid horses, or the waving grasses, or the horse manure. Which best
describes the picture? You so often say it is the manure, even when I am
talking about the horses.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #40
> >So you dismiss your attack on me saying I was lying about the nature and
> >degree of the problems at the refinery I mentioned (why is it you didn't
> >quote back THAT little exchange, eh? The one that shows you were 100%
wrong
> >in your "understanding" of my illustration? I wonder...")
>
> Was I declaring that you were 'lying' about the 'degree' with regard to
> the Chevron refinery, and the emissions? On the contrary, Bastos Randy.
> I was simply illustrating you -fallacy- in attempting to paint those
> who would submit to such fallacious ("getting in on a suit") with those
> in Clark seeking a venue/compensation, which of course are worlds away
> from one another in terms of circumstances and events. And again,
> it was clear that you were being fallacious in comparing the two, as well
> as your aversion to the term "toxic," and equating this with those with
> false intentions. But if you could just see how disingenous that retort
> was, perhaps you might - maybe even see the fallacy in and of this.
Let's look at what you REALLY said, eh?
>>>>Nevethless, I assumed the
>>>>town in the proximity of where you declared, "next to where you live"
was
>>>>Avon, California just on the otherside of the hill from Richmond. Or was
>>>>this a disingenous fabrication as well?
You WERE NOT "illustrating you -fallacy- in attempting to paint those who
would submit to such fallacious ("getting in on a suit") with those in Clark
seeking a venue/compensation". You were saying I was lying about the
location of the plant. Again, you wrongly state that Avon is on the other
side of the hill from Richmond, and hardly can be what I was referring to
when I specified "Chevron". But you just can't admit to any error, so you
have to twist it to indicate maybe I was lying in my own illustration! Talk
about denial! Just say it, Dom -- "I made a mistake". If you can learn to
say those words, your marriage will be happier, you work will go smoother,
and life will be all roses and cherries.
Ironically, you are saying here that what is important is not where the
plant is, but what my illustration's point was (what you characterize as
"getting in on the suit"). How does that sit with your exegesis of my
Tarzan illustration, where you say that it is the actors, not the
illustration's point is? Can't have it both ways...
Now, is your claim that my illustration is a fallacy as it protrays the
Clark plaintiffs valid? What exactly is it that you think I am saying?
That all the plaintiffs are fakes? I guess I can see how you might get that
impression from the illustration. I have since clarified it, but I will
again: just because someone makes a liability claim does not mean the claim
is warranted. They may be dishonest or they may honestly believe a
connection exists when one does not. Since I have repeated many times that
I think there should be compensation (just not $510 million per), I
obviously was not saying that the whole thing is a fake. But you cannot
simply assume because someone says there is a connections and they were
injured that this is where the cause and liability really lie. I have had
employees accused of crimes only to find out after a little investigation
that the witness thought the person who did it worked for me when it was
someone else entirely. You have no problem accepting from the news reports
and your own sympathies that all the Clark plaintiffs suffered as a direct
result of the toxics at Clark; I cannot make that assumption. Perhaps you
feel the promise of a few million US dollars would not influence someone to
join a lawsuit, but I think it might anywhere in the world. I was
approached by lawyers in a case againt the USG and the Social Security
Administration for exposing me (and hundreds of USG employees) to
Legionaire's Disease at the SSA building in Richmond. I wasn't sick, and
didn't feel right in joining in. Probably some people did.
I would like to hear your take on this issue after you owned a business for
a few years in a litiginous state like California. You might not be so
quick to assume that all the right is on the side of the plaintiffs and the
defendents are 100% wrong.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #41
> Of course not. Granted we've made a lot of assumptions in the course of
> this exchange, but I find this matter involving "toxics" and those who
> you'd just as soon paint with that broad brush of yours quite interesting.
You paint all the Clark plaintiffs one way (deserving victims whose claims
are all just and proven), and I suggest that not all of them should be
painted with the same brush. I see the details, the possibility of
individual exceptions, and you see no chance of exceptions. Who is
generalizing and using the wide brush? Your fallacy here is that you are
guilty of just what you accuse me of, while I am not. You assume all are
one thing; I prefer to not assume so much, as experience has led me to
understand that your kind of assumption is usually too simplistic.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #42
> Furthermore, there was no other 'preface' other than your subtle
comparison
> with those filing suit in Clark. Now while I see that you are once again
> assuming that I've never confronted and dealt with matters concerning
liability,
> and the responsibilites thereof I must say that your verbose, yet
double-speak
> over what you meant with regard to your non-sequitur, which was indeed the
> Chevron refinery, does not in anyway diminish the point that you did
indeed
> compare the two.
Whoa. Got a road map for that last sentence? If you have personally faced
liability, I am surprised that you do not seem to have any need for
verification of injury or liability for said injury. That makes me wonder
how many times you have faced such a thing, yes. Double speak? I don't
think so -- I believe my skeptical approach to this whole situation has been
pretty straight-forward. I am leary of class action suits, I am concerned
that conflicting reports from various agencies have been published, and I do
not believe the civil venue is appropriate. Not much room for doublespeak
there. But at least you admit (I think, sorta, in a weasely way) your error
in confusing the Chevron and Avon refineries.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #43
> Of course my 'English' is hard to follow. Remember? You declared that I
> wasn't 'bright,' and being a Filipino my grasp of the English language
isn't
> as proficient, nor as perfect as your's. And be that as it may, I believe
> that I've proved my point, a thousand-fold at that, that this was not
about
> "anti-American rhetoric," and that for a non-litigasaurus such as myself
> (as well as you) are entitled to whatever opinions may be held in regard
to
> the "Toxics In Clark." Furthermore, the depths, or even the shallowest of
> our exchanges should not be misconstrued with what is actually going on
out
> there. For the fact of the matter here is that people are seeking
assistance
> and compenstation in a 'venue' they see fit, yet your contention is, along
> with the meandering fallacies and non-sequiturs, that there is another
> which to this point isn't clear, nor existent for nearly the last decade.
The language issue is more from your attempts to use words you are not
completely comfortable with in an apparent design to sound more impressive.
Typical undergrad tactic, which doesn't have anything to do with
nationality.
I find this sentence fascinating:
> I believe
> that I've proved my point, a thousand-fold at that, that this was not
about
> "anti-American rhetoric," and that for a non-litigasaurus such as myself
> (as well as you) are entitled to whatever opinions may be held in regard
to
> the "Toxics In Clark."
First, you say you have proven that this was not about "anti-American"
rhetoric. Any reference I have made to that was to qualify both the
position of posters in this NG who have presumed the guilt of the USG (as
the Red Queen says, "First the sentence, then the trial!") and to hope that
whatever adjudicating body that might hear this would not be swayed by
anti-American sentiment. If you can show me where you have not consistently
maintained, directly and indirectly, the factual basis and utter validity of
the plaintiffs and the complete guilt of the defendents, then I will
withdraw the charge of bias. Since you cannot do that, I am forced to
continue to assert that nationalism and prejudice seem to be as important or
more important than justice in the minds of some. Thus you have failed to
prove the point.
The next part of this I find intriguing -- it appears you are saying that we
both are entitled to our opinions on this matter. Yet you have gone to
great lengths to redicule and denounce my opinions as falacious, ignorant,
etc. Are you really acknowledging that this discussion is, in the end, only
about relative opinions we are both entitled to hold? That's the first time
that has come out.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #44
> >>Yeah, in light of this impassioned diatribe, and not that it matters
> >>mind you, I'd just as soon 'assume' that at 2:00am this morning you
> >>were posting from a dial-up in Fremont, and watching David Letterman
> >>ogle Connie Chung, but then again I could be completely wrong in
> >>that my 'psychic' powers might be a little rusty after such an
> >>enlighting exchange ;-)
> >>
> >> l8R
> >>
> >> - Dominic
>
> >Wrong yet again. Cable modem in El Cerrito. But you never let facts or
> >accuracy get in the way of a good opinion, do you?
>
> Did you ever declare the means by which you access that news-server? Of
> course not - And I'm not entitled to 'presume?' Shucks, I suppose this
> info is better than dragging our wives & family into this, yes?
Dom, all you do is presume. It's the little presumptions like this (that I
use a dial up) that illustrate how far off you can be on more important
assumptions. And talk about non-sequiturs! Going back to wives and family?
Does not follow, not relevant.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #45
> Heheheh ...Of course not, but you didn't imagine that you nor I would've'
such
> an impact on this newsgroup either now did you? Come to think of it, this
> hasn't been "real" at all, and your presence out here being nothing more
> than one -big- contradiction wrapped in a non-sequitur.
Frankly, I doubt that anyone but us are reading this thread at this point
(OK, I'm sure PP2 is reading it, but I have a feeling he reads everything he
can lay his hands on). Where is the contradiction? Where is the
non-sequitur? My denying it when you distort what I say is not
contradiction but refutation and illumination.
Fallacy and non-sequitur #46
> Not so fast, Bastos ...I haven't employed my 2nd-string of arguments, yet!
> Oh, what the heck, and 'aside' from your snide-aside, I shall take
exceptional
> note of the sarcasm in and of this conditional capitulation of yours,
however
> that's not what's important here, rather what can be gleaned from such a
> dramatic epic exchange. And you know what, & FYI there were no 'winners'
> (per se) in this - Since that would be a loser's consideration to even
think it.
>
I haven't read any first string arguments from you! You never explored why
you feel the civil venue is appropriate in light of the quote that started
the thread indicating it is an exercise in futility at best, and that's the
keystone of your position.
Interesting perspective that it is a loser's consideration to think of
winners and losers. Sounds profound, but actually doesn't make any sense.
When you say you have "proved my point, a thousand-fold", isn't that a
declaration that you've won in no uncertain terms (a thousand-fold is a
lot)? Does that make you a loser to suggest that? Now THERE'S an enigma...
It's been real, but Elvis has left the building.
Randy
skylon
say the least.
Actually from my experience being overseas in that scumbag Navy( Just
kidding), I saw alot more ppl that disliked Americans due to Old BS told to
them decades ago, but in America, yes we have racism, we are not even close
to being that bad.
I have never seen a foreigner in this country get turned away from any
type of bar or club with crossed arms, like americans were treated in
foreign countries. The thing most ppl don't realize is that America is not
as bad and condeming of foreign persons as they used to be, I believe since
the 1800's.
I for one am an American and u can judge me based on what u have heard
about my country, but I refuse to be the same way, even in the face of the
abuse I took overseas just for being an American and not a person.