The Assault on Reason
Islander
is another view.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints/2007/05/assault_on_reason.html
American public discourse is increasingly "vulnerable to the kind of
rope-a-dope strategies that Exxon Mobil and their brethren have been
employing for decades now," argues Al Gore. For example, a recent survey
of 21 nations found that Americans are "among the least anxious" about
global warming, "even though their nation is the top source of
greenhouse gases." In a ranking of 34 countries, the United States ranks
near the bottom in the public acceptance of Charles Darwin's mainstream
theory of evolution. Nearly half of the public still believes that
Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, despite unequivocal
refutations of that claim. In his new book, The Assault on Reason, which
will be released tomorrow, Gore attempts to explain "why logic and
reason and the best evidence available and the scientific discoveries do
not have more force in changing the way we all think about the reality
we are now facing." He sharply criticizes the television media for
covering trivial excess and politicians for alienating the public, many
of whom believe "that no one in power listens to or cares what they
think." American democracy "is in danger of being hollowed out," writes
Gore. "In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to
repair the systemic decay of the public forum."
-- Americans are less informed as the media keep the attention on serial
obsessions. Americans watch television for an average of four hours and
35 minutes each day, which is 90 minutes more than the average in the
rest of the world. But much of this viewing time is devoted to coverage
of "serial obsessions," such as the Michael Jackson trial and the Laci
Peterson tragedy. ...
-- In too many cases, the voices of individual citizens are lost as
information flows in one direction. "In the world of television, the
massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which
makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what
passes for a national conversation," writes Gore in The Assault on
Reason. ...
-- As the internet grows into a place for all citizens to have their
voices heard, net neutrality must be preserved. Whereas television
often suppresses public debate, Gore believes that the Internet
encourages it. He writes that it "has extremely low entry barriers for
individuals. It is the most interactive medium in history and the one
with the greatest potential for connecting individuals to one another
and to a universe of knowledge ... It's a platform, in other words, for
reason." ...
Jerry Okamura
the wheat so to speak, is we have TOO MUCH information, not TOO LITTLE
information. And for all of that, I am willing to bet that none of us can
answer a few basic questions that I have been asking someone to provide the
answers to a number of times recently. Perhaps you can. Here they are
again.
What will be the effects of Global Warming, and when will the effect be the
worse?
How certain are the predictions of Global Warming (100% certainty, 90%,
50%)?
When will it happen, and what will happen and how certain are these
predictions?
When will Global Warming reach its worst case scenario, and what is that
worst case scenario? How certain are the predictions that the worst case
scenario will happen? What are the other scenarios of what may happen? If
you were to rank each scenario, what is the most likely scenario?
How big a reduction of greenhouses gases is required to avoid Global
Warming, how much of a yearly reduction is required, how soon do we have the
reach the yearly goal, what happens if we are not able to reach the yearly
goal, and can anyone guarantee that we can avoid Global Warming, regardless
of what we do?
Why concentrate on one of the greenhouse gases and not the other greenhouse
gases?
Just a few unanswered questions, and I am sure smarter people than me, would
have more to add to this list.
"Islander" <nos...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uuudnUhCaY1uRczb...@rockisland.com...
Florida
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:36:45 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >For those who think that the media is pandering to the left wing, here
> >is another view.
>
>
> When you are seeking an objective analysis of bias in the media, I
> suggest you might want to retain some shred of credibility by
> refraining from the use of a site which positions itself in the
> political spectrum to the left of Chairman Mao.
How predictable. That's your basic republicon, all right - "Let me
have no other opinions before me."
Florida
> For those who think that the media is pandering to the left wing, here
> is another view.
>
Good article, thanks for the url.
I noticed that the nation seemed to have entered into a Total News
Blackout because of the breathless daily overreporting of an assault
by one figure skater on another, the tedious 'reports' ground on and
on and on. After that, news was all turned into fluff and feathers.
Alvin E. Toda
I substitute in the public schools occasionally. I
think that the problem is more the lack of time. We are
conditioned by the TV media to receive news in quick
soundbites. Students don't want to read the book or
even a newspaper. And that's true of most of the
public.
NoName
wrote:
>For those who think that the media is pandering to the left wing, here
The Internet is a welcoming spot where you or I can express our
views in the "Comments" sections that increasingly follow news
stories and blogs. In those Comment sections some interesting
arguments get going. Watching news on TV, we can talk back only
by muttering to ourselves.
While only a small segment of Internet users participate in
newsgroups on Usenet. millions do post comments in other venues.
Islander
>> is another view.
>>
>> http://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints/2007/05/assault_on_reason.html
>>
> suggest you might want to retain some shred of credibility by
> refraining from the use of a site which positions itself in the
> political spectrum to the left of Chairman Mao.
Ah, the ultimate refuge of the right. In the absence of a reasoned
response, resort to equating any argument from the left with Communism.
Islander
I agree with the conditioned to soundbites part, but not the part about
lack of time. Most of what is coming at us from TV (and increasingly
from the Internet) is based on marketing. What is presented is what
pays. There are two issues here.
First, the news services used to be independent of advertising and that
appears to no longer be the case. If people aren't watching,
advertisers pick other venues. The result is pressure from the networks
to create programs that entertain rather than inform.
Second, our citizenry are getting lazy in an environment where some
pretty smart people are spoon feeding them. There is no difference
between what is happening in the news services and in commercials. They
don't want critical thought. Our high schools used to teach critical
thought, using commercials as an example. Is that no longer done?
Islander
Yes, but many of these other venues are moderated. We are beginning to
see the beginnings of censorship of what is expressed on some of the
commercial or sponsored sites.
The battle still also continues to increase the capability to push
information out over the internet. Popups and spam are only the
beginning.
NoName
wrote:
Examples? I haven't seen moderation of the comments sections on
the NY Times or Washington Post. Except the usual admonitions about
really abusive language and such. But the posters are not censored
for their opinions, and many are very provocative.
I have enjoyed reading some of the comment sections because I've
learned that more people than one would think are very savvy and
interested in debating the issues.
Before the Internet, readers could send a letter to a newspaper
or magazine but just a few were every published. Now everyone
gets to put in a their two cents worth.
>
>The battle still also continues to increase the capability to push
>information out over the internet. Popups and spam are only the
>beginning.
Both of the above can be handled by software.
I read an article the other day that said liberals have made better
use of the net to getting their opinions out there and that the
conservatives are wanting to play catch-up. The problem for the
latter is that the Republican party has always wanted to stay
"on message" -- that is the offical RNC message, while Democrats
are notorious for having a wide range of opinions among themselves
and not being afraid to express them. What was seen by some as
a minus may have turned out to be a plus.
David R KE悟T
how much more is it going to cost
how many more lives will be lost and ruined
who is going to win the 2008 election
when is Jesus returning
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4651e76d$0$12463$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
David R KE悟T
it's like witches and water,
warlocks and salt
the truth makes them naked for all the world to see
a bunch of retarded, inbred, crackers, prone to losing,failing,corruption,
cowardice and screwing things up
"El Castor" <No_...@Here.Com> wrote in message
news:lfq353l25auj39r9q...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:36:45 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>For those who think that the media is pandering to the left wing, here
>>is another view.
>>
>>http://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints/2007/05/assault_on_reason.html
>>
David R KE悟T
"jimstevens" <jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote in message
news:50r353pnhvc38vl3f...@4ax.com...
> [Default] On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:54:21 -0700, El Castor
> <No_...@Here.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:36:45 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>is another view.
>>>
>>>http://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints/2007/05/assault_on_reason.html
>>>
>>suggest you might want to retain some shred of credibility by
>>refraining from the use of a site which positions itself in the
>>political spectrum to the left of Chairman Mao.
>
David R KE悟T
<sordo T...@mini-tru.org> wrote in message
news:5be9gfF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:54:21 -0700, El Castor <No_...@Here.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:36:45 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>is another view.
>>>
>>>http://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints/2007/05/assault_on_reason.html
>>>
>>suggest you might want to retain some shred of credibility by
>>refraining from the use of a site which positions itself in the
>>political spectrum to the left of Chairman Mao.
>
speaking of incest fred dick,
is that what you were locked up for ?
David R KE悟T
"El Castor" <No_...@Here.Com> wrote in message
> affiliated organization? When I called the office of my congresswoman,
> Lynn Woolsey, to inquire if she was a member of the DSA, the aide I
> spoke with had to put me on hold while she checked.
you probably would prefer that they were members of the KKK and the Nazi
party, right goober
David R KE悟T
> [Default] On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:04 -0700, Islander
> <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
> But, you are a socialist/communist/anti-capitalist. No?
and you are a fascist,Nazi,skinheaded retarded hillbilly, gutless too of
course, all mouth and no balls ?
NoName
>On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:04 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>Really not that complicated. Before reading your treatise I checked
>the source, and went no further. Excessive use of the words "progress"
>and "progressive" is a sure sign of socialism. Life is too short to
>waste it on socialists. BTW -- Did you know that the web site of the
>Democratic Socialists of America (a member of The Socialist
>International) at one time listed the House Progressive Caucus as an
>affiliated organization? When I called the office of my congresswoman,
>Lynn Woolsey, to inquire if she was a member of the DSA, the aide I
>spoke with had to put me on hold while she checked. (-8
Aha, the secret "code words" of the left. Progress and progressive. I
love it. Gosh, Jeff, it is hard to fool a clever sleuth like you.
Root out and expose those commies, rah rah.
Olly Mensch
only needs to look for the publication which most agrees with our own
point of view, regardless of its reliability or objectivity.
Olly
Islander
I basically agree. Unlike newspapers, there is virtually unlimited
space to publish reader feedback. I also agree that most moderated
public forums are pretty open to discussion of controversial topics. I
hope that the more responsible venues continue to remain open,
especially when reader comments may conflict with the interests of major
advertisers.
>> The battle still also continues to increase the capability to push
>> information out over the internet. Popups and spam are only the
>> beginning.
>
> Both of the above can be handled by software.
>
> I read an article the other day that said liberals have made better
> use of the net to getting their opinions out there and that the
> conservatives are wanting to play catch-up. The problem for the
> latter is that the Republican party has always wanted to stay
> "on message" -- that is the offical RNC message, while Democrats
> are notorious for having a wide range of opinions among themselves
> and not being afraid to express them. What was seen by some as
> a minus may have turned out to be a plus.
>
Personally, I do not underestimate the Republicans. They are suffering
now from a notoriously bad Presidency and the mess in Iraq. To a large
extent, they have diffused the major scandals in Congress by simply
painting the entire body with the same brush.
What I don't see much of is a condemnation of the flawed ideology. It
is easy to target Bush, but the problems with the Republican party run
much deeper, IMV.
Islander
> [Default] On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:04 -0700, Islander
No. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, but that statement
tends to make Jeff's head explode. I am pro-capitalism, but do not
expect the free market to solve all economic problems. I understand and
support the role of government needed to prevent the abuses of
capitalism. I also understand how government and industry can be
corrupted. In particular, I have written here frequently about how the
tax code has become a social engineering tool of the right, favoring the
wealthy at the expense of everyone else. I've also written here about
the role of Big Oil in motivating the Iraq war.
On social issues, I tend to be liberal.
NoName
wrote:
There are quite a few Republicans who would agree that their party is
in crisis, although perhaps for different reasons. The candidates in
their debate seemed to be reaching out to a past as exemplified by
Reagan. Seems to me, like most attempts to resuse the past (which
Americans seem prone to) something is lost in the transposition of
then to now. The world, and the U.S., does not face the same set of
circumstances as in the Reagan years. We have moved on.
marib
> and are driven in the corner by truth, you can always attack the
> messenger.
<G>
Islander
> [Default] On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:47:48 -0700, Islander
>
> The problem with Bush and GOP leadership is they are not following any
> idelology. They are not fiscal conservatives but spend like crazy.
> They are not small government but add to the bureacracy and rules on
> our lives. They are not social conservatives but are more then
> willing to compromise on things like immigration at the drop of the
> hat. They are not internationally grounded but interventionist which
> is right out of Clinton's book. They have no guiding ideology once
> they get elected. They blow smoke up our butt on their principles but
> abandon them immediately for expediency or whatever.
>
> Second. How can you, with a straight face, climb up on a high horse
> condemning the GOP? You, Rita, and the other political hacks here
> never see an issue on any grounds but partisanship. Need a bucket of
> credibility if you are going to sell me on anything Paul.
I've been reading your posts for several years now and while you seem to
be willing to discuss issues on their merits, in fact are more liberal
than I am on some issues, you remain highly partisan on anything that
you suspect is "liberal." I find this curious.
As to any fiscal conservatism demonstrated by the GOP, I submit that
none of the last three Republican presidents can claim any credentials
in that respect.
Islander
interesting and perhaps revealing of a marked shallowness. Like the
current GOP administration, those years were marked with scandal, abuse
of power, social injustice, and massive fiscal irresponsibility. But,
Reagan had a nice smile and could joke about anything!
Islander
Strange that you did not recognize that this is exactly what Jeff did!
NoName
NoName
>Not commies, socialists -- although the difference seems to be in the
>details. And yes, "progressive" when used to describe political
>philosophy is a code word for socialist. Interestingly, European
>socialists seem much more inclined to call a spade a spade, and are
>not uncomfortable with the word "socialist". On the other hand,
>American politicians (with the exception of Bernie Sanders) are much
>more uncomfortable with the "s" word, and prefer the code word --
>progressive. Not surprisingly, It was Bernie Sanders, an avowed
>socialist, who co-founded the Progressive Caucus.
>
>Here's an interesting factoid for you.
>
>"Until 1999, the web site of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the
>Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link
>between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, the Progressive Caucus
>established its own web site under the auspices of Congress."
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29612
>
>Back when Chamblee was crowing about being a dues paying member of the
>Democratic Socialists of America, I scouted around the DSA web site
>and stumbled on a page devoted to the House Progressive Caucus which
>referred to it as an "affiliated organization". It listed my
>congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey, as a member (of the Caucus), and it was
>then that I called her office and inquired if she was a member of the
>DSA -- a question which required some research before an answer could
>be found. A few days later I checked the DSA web site and found the
>internal link to the Progressive Caucus page had been removed, however
>I had a direct link to the page and it was still there. A few months
>later I checked and the page was gone.
>
>Jeff
My goodness, Jeff, to think you terrified a Congresswoman into
changing an entry on a web page. Wow! Bet that whole gang of
socialists were all a twitter.
Of course there could be other reasons for removing the link, but
let's be big about it and give you the credit.
Good job, Jeff!
Alvin E. Toda
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Islander wrote:
>>
>>> For those who think that the media is pandering to the left wing, here
>>> is another view.
>>>
>>> http://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints/2007/05/assault_on_reason.html
>>>
>> I substitute in the public schools occasionally. I
>> think that the problem is more the lack of time. We
>> are conditioned by the TV media to receive news in
>> quick soundbites. Students don't want to read the
>> book or even a newspaper. And that's true of most of
>> the public.
>
> I agree with the conditioned to soundbites part, but
> not the part about lack of time. Most of what is
> coming at us from TV (and increasingly from the
> Internet) is based on marketing. What is presented
> is what pays. There are two issues here.
>
> First, the news services used to be independent of
> advertising and that appears to no longer be the
> case. If people aren't watching, advertisers pick
> other venues. The result is pressure from the
> networks to create programs that entertain rather
> than inform.
>
> Second, our citizenry are getting lazy in an
> environment where some pretty smart people are spoon
> feeding them. There is no difference between what is
> happening in the news services and in commercials.
> They don't want critical thought. Our high schools
> used to teach critical thought, using commercials as
> an example. Is that no longer done?
They still teach critical thought. Don't know about
commercials though. I see it as an educational goal
posted in many classrooms. But on the whole, it doesn't
seem to be learned well even if it is taught.
Islander
> [Default] On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:26:06 -0700, Islander
>
> Ideally, there should not be a 'liberal' or 'conservative' set of
> talking points that guide us. We should not have to check into
> Newsmax.com or progressive.com for our views and then wonder why some
> friendly partisan is not in line! But, there it is.
>
> Curious. A personal philosophy is something adopted from parents and
> community and thus very easy to understand. Just look to those who
> stick to such philosophy and then have good insight into the person's
> believ. OTOH, some evolve a philosophy from looking at the things we
> encounter and then mold something we then prefer.
>
> I am northern born, southern raised, eastern in my early adult life
> and curious since I could read at about 5. So, it would be a mix of
> the spectrum Paul.
>
> But, within it all, I despise liberalism. I admire it's early roots
> in Medieval Europe but by the time it gets to the French Revolution it
> is rephrehensible. Rich pricks sitting around Madame Pampadour's
> salon eating rich foods listening to themselves believe they know
> about life from the rantings of Voltaire and Rousseau.
>
> I don't object to the strains of different ideas. Such radical ideas
> should provide the resistance for us to refine our policies. I object
> to the surrender of considering just what we will have once we allow
> revolutionaries to chop off all the heads and implement a more just
> society.
>
> Whether in Mao's China, Russia of the early 20th century or the French
> Revolution, smarmy bastards selling revolution have brought nothing
> but lies and grab power and dishing out misery for the masses. I
> despise liberals to the core. The kind of visceral disgust most
> liberals feel for the religious.
>
> Why am I partisan? Out of reality and recently am coming to
> conclusion there is no party to support. Supporting any Democrat is
> supporting revolution and socialism. A particular candidate may not
> be a socialist but their weight gives the most radicals in the Dem the
> power of the Congress. I suspect if you look at the leadership in the
> House today you will see it is much more 'liberal' then the Dem
> membership. So I am a partisan out of no other alternatives.
>
> I supported GOP under Reagan because I was very comfortable with their
> policies and how they implemented philosophy. Not strict on
> everything but a practical approach to governing based on principle.
>
> Since then I have not seen as much faith in principle with GOP but I
> supported GOP as the DNC has been captured by the left. And I despise
> liberals. In 2003 I privately was convinced the GOP was bankrupt of
> principles but had little choice as the Dems had nothing to offer.
> Kerry was the worst choice for the Dems and they probably would have
> had much better shot with some other moderate.
>
> By now the GOP has been captured by the money boys. They are now
> shifting their full financial support to the Dems making sure the Dems
> fall in line. No party left worth supporting IMV.
>
> It really is time for a revolution eh? lol We do not have a
> democracy but are offered vetted candidates approved by activists,
> power brokers, moneyboys or others who can leverage their early
> investments into great power.
>
> For coming election I am hoping we can see a candidate strong enough
> to both get the money and have the spine to resist being a paid-for
> whore.
You might want to revisit the reasons for your visceral reaction to
liberalism. It interferes with rational discussion of the issues. When
you lapse into a rant about liberals, anyone who might have listened to
your argument tunes out. I admit to the same failing when it comes to
positions of the far right.
Islander
> [Default] On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:30:58 -0700, Islander
> being self critical very important. I also consider knowing why you
> have strong beliefs if you are going to hold them.
>
> Liberals are very important to push societies along improving our
> general welfare. They have a very poor record when they get into
> power. Once liberalism takes deep roots it tends to dominate all
> other thoughts and run wild with the full agenda.
>
> I think there should be some expectation that the basic groundrules of
> ones youth should re recognizable in their later years. Change yes.
> Throw it all overboard - no thank you.
>
> Any casual reader passing by will draw an assumption based on my
> desire to regularly use hyperbole or more noise to amplify a point. I
> like such and could give a shit if someone can't handle it.
>
> As to listening, Paul, nobody here is inclined to do much of that -
> unless the content blends well with their own ideas.
>
> I get along very well with the liberals I know but I am very careful
> not to pursue any substantial discussions. I have to get along with
> them as they are neighbors, family, or friends of the same. It is
> counterproductive to get into the political in such cases. And
> unfortunately most issues have a political element. Go fishing, play
> cards, canoe, walk or exercise, with or share hobbies and such. But,
> never going to open up in any substantial manner. I know I don't like
> liberals and are not at all inclined to begin liking them.
>
> These kinds of folks are interesting and fun once the political is
> laid aside. However, if it were not for the nature of relationships,
> there is no way in hell I would spend time with them. Being a bit of
> a fly in the wall I hear a lot of the abuse dished out to the old
> traditionalists in the family. Catty or bitchy comments that get
> right to the heart of it. OTOH, it is very interesting to get
> together with some of the hardcore conservatives for some frank
> discussion! I am thinking of one old couple who has had to put up
> with shit for 40 or so years for familial peace. Years of radical
> bullshit that comes into everything. Whether vegetarianism or
> feminism, I wonder how to hell the old folks did not blow a gasket at
> some point.
>
> Liberals are nasty people and I am not about to begin revisiting
> anything.
Too bad you feel that way. Feelings that are buried in the supposed
interest of keeping peace in the family or with neighbors tend to
eventually boil to the surface in a nasty way.
A conservative friend of mine and I put together a group that we call
"Beef and Bullshit." We get together every couple of months to scorch
some beef on the grill and drink some wine while discussing some topic
of mutual interest. The only rules are, no ad hominem attacks and no ad
verecundiam attacks. We are about evenly split between conservatives
and liberals. No subjects are off limits and we have gotten comfortable
enough with each other that we can talk religion, politics, economics,
sex, anything. Most of the time we pick a controversial book to provide
a focus for the discussion, but we are definitely not a book club.
Additional research is often brought to the meetings to support a
particular position.
Great fun! Helps us to postpone dementia.
Matthew Scott
> There are quite a few Republicans who would agree that their party is
> in crisis, although perhaps for different reasons. The candidates in
> their debate seemed to be reaching out to a past as exemplified by
> Reagan. Seems to me, like most attempts to resuse the past (which
> Americans seem prone to) something is lost in the transposition of
> then to now. The world, and the U.S., does not face the same set of
> circumstances as in the Reagan years. We have moved on.
I was listening to a BBC broadcast last night (recorded a couple of
weeks after 9/11) which started out with various Britons expressing
their distaste for American policies. The program then segued into a
report on anti-Americanism in Latin America, primarily Venezuela.
I was struck by how often the complaints concerned long-past actions,
mostly policies adopted and actions taken during the Cold War to thwart
Soviet expansionism. There is little doubt that the U.S. did some bad
things and supported some sleazy folks in the fight against the "evils
of communism". The question is the motivation behind those policies and
actions.
Curiously, though, while agreeing that this country's hands aren't 100%
clean, I can't help but feel that the Cold War was real, was dirty, and
had to be fought. It is to be regretted that smaller, less developed
countries sometimes found themselves a figurative or sometimes literal
battleground in that war, but that was the nature of the conflict.
I know it's human nature to enjoy nursing a grudge, so I don't expect
Hugo Chavez or any of his ilk to shift their focus from the past to the
future any time soon. I'm also afraid that the fallout from the Cold War
is going to contribute to anti-American feelings for the foreseeable
future. The U.S. does not face the same set of circumstances as in the
Cold War years. We have moved on. Much of the rest of the world has not.
Matthew Scott
> For coming election I am hoping we can see a candidate strong enough
> to both get the money and have the spine to resist being a paid-for
> whore.
Money and spine. The only serious candidate I can recall that met those
standards was Ross Perot. Interestingly, he operated entirely outside
the existing party/power/money structure. He still was not successful in
his quest.
In addition to the corruption and ideological heresy of the two major
parties, increasing voter apathy is a particularly disturbing
phenomenon. We just finished local elections in the small fishing
village by the sea where I live, and turnout was less than 10% of
registered voters. Voter turnout across all ages has been declining. The
United States now has on average the lowest voter turnout in the world
(among mature democracies).
Voter apathy is creeping up slowly. Some call it "political depression"
and it begs the question: If people don't participate, at what point
does a democracy cease to be democratic? Combine that with the general
dissatisfaction with the performance of government at all levels, and
particularly the Federal government in Washington, and the problem
becomes: What can we, as the governed people, do about it? The system
seems to be broken, but so few of us participate by voting that there
doesn't seem to be any way to drive significant change. We seem stuck on
stupid.
NoName
I don't know -- seems the U.S. had a lot of support following 9/11
from other nations but lost it fast when we invaded Iraq. Prior to
that, Clinton was a very popular figure worldwide. I know my son
lived in Belgium during his impeacment proceedings and folks there
couldn't understand what the fuss was about. They thought he was
a terrific President and thought Americans were nuts to get so
riled up over a sex scandal. Europe lacks that Puritan streak.
I don't think grudges other nations have against the U.S. go back
to the Cold War. The Communist nations fell of their own weight
and most have adopted some version of free enterprise since.
Chavez is an anomaly in my view. The U.S. did do some dirty tricks
in Latin and Central America but I think there it is more of a
question of these not so strong nations seeing the U.S. as an
overriding power.
Matthew Scott
> . . . . . I think there it is more of a
> question of these not so strong nations seeing the U.S. as an
> overriding power.
I didn't include all your comments, but suffice it to say that I
interpret the past 60 odd years differently. Whatever.
You do raise a salient point, however. As the biggest kid on the block,
the U.S. is going to be seen as "an overriding power" for the
conceivable future; it comes with the territory. Just because we're
bigger, richer, better looking, and more successful than practically the
rest of the world, the poor and downtrodden masses are going to be
jealous of our wealth and power. A temptation which I hope we can avoid
is to be so afraid of demonstrating our power that we just roll over and
play dead when those tin-pot dictators demonstrate their machismo by
tweaking the Great Satan's nose. At the same time, care must be taken
not to act or be seen as a bully, just because we're so "big" and
"powerful".
I strongly suspect that still to come is the rejection of anything
remotely connected with the U.S. It won't be long before Venezuela and
Mexico, maybe even Canada, certainly the Middle-East, cut off oil
exports to the U.S. Charitable donations, government aid, trans-national
companies; all will told to pack up and go home. The currently hostile
U.N. will become more openly antagonistic. This attitude has been
building for much, much longer than the past five or six years. We're in
for some very interesting times.
Thumper
<sco...@interstate.awnings.com> wrote:
Perhaps our leaders need to put more thought into their policies
before they implement them. They never seem to understand the
consequences for their actions. This Iraq war comes to mind.
Thumper
Islander
served a useful purpose by running. It got the attention of the country
and especially the Democratic party. I voted for Ross simply because I
wanted to send a strong message to both parties on the economy.
It seems as if things have to get really bad before the voter turnout
comes up if local elections are any indication. It will be interesting
to see what the turnout is in 2008. A significant turnout might be the
major contribution of the Bush administration.
Olly Mensch
has not been marked with scandal, abuse of power, social
injustice,etc.etc.etc. Can you name one??? Clinton, perhaps???!!!
Johnson?? Truman??? It is merely a matter of degree - in my view.
Olly
Olly Mensch
views as you do to yours - as surely you know.
It seems to me that you have too much to offer to want to join those who
indulge in the most bitter of sarcasm with others, rather than
presenting substance, which you do most of the time, and when you do, it
is impressive, whether right or wrong - - but the sarcasm to Jeff is
beneath you, it seems to me.
Olly - wagging her finger!!!!
NoName
I don't think this is inevitable. But as the world superpower
the U.S. does bear a heavy burden to not do things that support
the view we will use our power whenever and wherever we please.
Taking too broad a view of our "national interests" can lead
to more trouble than it is worth. Other nations want to be
accorded some respect in regard to their sovereignty. The U.S.,
perhaps, must go out of its way not to appear a bully.
As for tin-pot dictators, the U.S. has supported several such
regimes in the past in Latin and Central America. But we put
up with them because they were of the right not the left. Have
you forgotten our involvement in Chile and in El Salvador and
Nicaragua? We supported brutal regimes in those cases and
incurred fear and hostility from others in that area that has
lasted well beyond those years.
Islander
I agree that this has been building for a long time and that the last
six years are just the icing on the cake. Bachevich in "The New
American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War" makes a good case
for how we have come to rely on militancy rather than alternative
approaches to our international affairs. This tenancy helps to paint us
as the bully. Even in Europe, our efforts to safeguard the world from
the Soviet threat allowed the European countries to minimize their
military spending while our military came to dominate the region. They
became dependent on us and it could be expected that this would produce
some resentment, especially when that power is used to ride roughshod
over many other issues. When we decided to invade Iraq, that resentment
bubbled to the surface as many countries started to wonder what the
impact of a new policy of preemptive war might mean. Our early signal
to the nations in Europe that they would not participate in the
production of Iraqi oil if they did not become part of the coalition was
also a clear signal of our intent to use militarism to increase our
economic power.
NoName
wrote:
Jeff and I have exchanged this sort of thing, Olly. I don't think
he takes it seriously. And Jeff gives as good as he gets. I
wouldn't worry about it, if I were you.
Islander
Yes, definitely a matter of degree. As for Reagan, Iran/Contra was a
major scandal and a very serious abuse of power, when he ignored the
AIDS epidemic it delayed the development of treatment and contributed to
the current scope of the disease, and his sorry record on bloating the
national debt is only surpassed by the current administration.
Islander
> [Default] On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:06:45 -0700, Islander
> frustrated to believe it matters.
>
> I will always vote because it is a duty of citizens to vote. But, I
> have little passion or faith in any of the candidates so far. In the
> past two major elections, I was voting for the guy I thought would do
> least damage. None of the alternatives were anything to get excited
> about and it was more supporting a philosophy and being stuck with the
> candidate that one believed was closest to it.
>
> Won't be a shock to see voter turnout tumble in many demographics in
> coming elections. The decider will be local elections.
What do you think of Bill Richardson? His credentials look pretty good
to me.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with the slate of Democratic candidates. I
tend to like Biden, primarily since he seems to have the only reasonable
plan for Iraq, but recognize that he is too controversial to get the
nomination.
I'm actually more concerned about the economy than Iraq. Iraq will play
out one way or another, but the problems with the economy will still be
with us.
Thumper
wrote:
>Matthew Scott wrote:
You sent a message all right. You said your vote wouldn't count.
Thumper
marib
> marib wrote:
>> sordo ™@mini-tru.org wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:32:45 -0700, NoName <NoN...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 20:06:22 -0700, El Castor <No_...@Here.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:04 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:36:45 -0700, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those who think that the media is pandering to the left
>>>>>>>> wing, here is another view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.americanprogressaction.org/talkingpoints/2007/05/assault_on_reason.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> suggest you might want to retain some shred of credibility by
>>>>>>> refraining from the use of a site which positions itself in the
>>>>>>> political spectrum to the left of Chairman Mao.
>>>>>> Ah, the ultimate refuge of the right. In the absence of a
>>>>>> reasoned response, resort to equating any argument from the left
>>>>>> with Communism.
>>>>> Really not that complicated. Before reading your treatise I checked
>>>>> the source, and went no further. Excessive use of the words "progress"
>>>>> and "progressive" is a sure sign of socialism. Life is too short to
>>>>> waste it on socialists. BTW -- Did you know that the web site of the
>>>>> Democratic Socialists of America (a member of The Socialist
>>>>> International) at one time listed the House Progressive Caucus as an
>>>>> affiliated organization? When I called the office of my congresswoman,
>>>>> Lynn Woolsey, to inquire if she was a member of the DSA, the aide I
>>>>> spoke with had to put me on hold while she checked. (-8
>>>> Aha, the secret "code words" of the left. Progress and progressive. I
>>>> love it. Gosh, Jeff, it is hard to fool a clever sleuth like you.
>>>> Root out and expose those commies, rah rah.
>>>
>>> and are driven in the corner by truth, you can always attack the
>>> messenger.
>>
>> <G>
>
> Strange that you did not recognize that this is exactly what Jeff did!
I don't see where Jeff attacked you.
<G>
Matthew Scott
> As for tin-pot dictators, the U.S. has supported several such
> regimes in the past in Latin and Central America. But we put
> up with them because they were of the right not the left. Have
> you forgotten our involvement in Chile and in El Salvador and
> Nicaragua? We supported brutal regimes in those cases and
> incurred fear and hostility from others in that area that has
> lasted well beyond those years.
As I said in this thread yesterday, "I was struck by how often the
complaints concerned long-past actions, mostly policies adopted and
actions taken during the Cold War to thwart Soviet expansionism. There
is little doubt that the U.S. did some bad things and supported some
sleazy folks in the fight against the "evils of communism". The question
is the motivation behind those policies and actions."
Do try to pay attention.
Matthew Scott
This is really an interesting subject for thought and discussion. While
ordinarily I poo-poo Buchanan and other strict isolationists, the
concerns you mention are valid, and the cost/benefit ratios of the
sacrifices demanded by the leadership position are increasingly brought
into question, especially considering the hostility and resentment felt
by recipients of our "largesse". I'm coming closer and closer to the
conclusion that it's probably time for the U.S. to draw in its horns a
little and let the rest of the world, particularly Europe and the EU,
stew in their own juices for a while. I'm also sure that that will never
happen -- TV shows films of starving orphans too often.
I'm afraid that too many senior officials, military, civilian, and
governmental, spent so many years "fighting" the Cold War that they
don't know how to stop and are desperately searching for a new "axis of
evil" to combat. Much of the schizophrenic behavior of the U.S. over the
past fifteen years has been due to the "withdrawal symptoms" caused by
the sudden collapse and disappearance of our greatest enemy. Habit
patterns are hard to change. The largest portion of our population was
shielded from knowledge of the majority of the effort that went into the
Cold War. In retrospect, I'm not sure that this was a wise course to
take. But who knows?
NoName
That new "axis of evil" has been found -- surely you recognize the
amorphous "war on terror" as providing even more gist for U.S.
intervention around the globe than the Cold War?
The enemy in the Cold War was communism. Now it is Muslim
fundamentalism. Which, given the Muslim population of the world
and the fact the very fact of being Muslim seems to be in and
of itself a cause for great alarm, means this will be a robust
and long lasting venture. Communism collapsed of its own weight
but Muslims are not going to convert or go away.
NoName
OK. Point taken. Motivation? Hard to pin it down when dictatorial
and brutal regimes either on the left or the right are equally
threatening to the American way of life. The South and Central
American regimes we supported used exactly the same brutal practices
as the Soviet regime. So one could assume it was the ideology
not the "evils" of communism per se that led to this support. That
was what was so ironic to me at the time. It is sort of like having
to make a choice between Stalin and Hitler. Which was the worst?
We did take sides in that and it led to decades of trouble, although
enabling the Allies to win World War II.
Matthew Scott
Thank you for sharing those revelations. I never would have known about
those hard truths without your oh so kind instruction. For sure.
NoName
Well, do you or do you not agree that the "war on terror" is a
substitute for the Cold War so far as providing justifications for
interventionism?
Both concepts are highly amorphous and slippery so it was and is
easy to apply them wherever needed.
Olly Mensch
debt" - - was almost inevitable since his goal was to defeat the
Russians in the cold war "competition" which wsas dangerously lurking,
and Reagan wanted to build up the "Star Wars" defense, which is, indeed,
what eventually scared the Russians into quiet oblivion (!!) since they
could not afford to compete with us; didn't have the means. But all of
that caused the bulging national debt for us; and it was well worth it.
Olly
Olly Mensch
interviewed the other day, and,although there is an air of humility and
good humor about him, I was not terribly impressed with him. That, of
course, is a qick judgment; he does have a good reputation - however - I
do not think he is presidential material.
I do not care at all for any of the other democatic candidates - way
out to the left - unrealistic, in these times - except perhaps for
Hillary, whose views are a tiny bit more realistic - but I happen to
dislike her intensely, and her past is questionable. N ow - as to the
Republican candidates......:-)
Olly
Olly Mensch
Edwards, for instance) that there is no "war on terror"??? It is hard
for me to think that you might indeed feel that way - and be so
misguided - but your post indicated it to be so..Has thee not been
enough terror in the world, and to our land in particular, to convince
you that, indeed, there IS such a thing?? Were you to consult England,
France and Germany, surely,they would confirm that that is so,since they
have suffered their own attacks, and are being inundated by the Muslim
population,which plans (most of them) harm to their adopted country!!!
Plus Al Qaeda openly threatens us. You remind me a bit of some of the
jewish people, in Germany, when Hitler was elected, who felt that it
was just a passing development, and nothing to get too upset about. All
of them perished. What would it take for you to realize the danger?.
It is not the Muslims - it is their credo - their outspoken goal of
eliminating us. 9/11 was a successful beginning for their plans,wasn't
it?! Surely, I do not need to spell that out to you.
Olly
Olly Mensch
as justification for interventionism."
I do not believe you said that!!!!!!! You and John Edwards!!. Politics
is blinding you to the stark and new realities facing us these days.
Sorry.
Olly
NoName
wrote:
>islander - Richardson is supposed to be a good man; I saw him being
What do you think of the Republican candidates?
marib
Were you apposed to the cold war as much as you are to
fighting terrorism?
<G>
Jean Smith
Old...@webtv.net (Olly Mensch) wrote:
When it was over, it was time to pay it off.
--
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/authors/index.jhtml
http://shop.comedycentral.com/Books-by-Guests_stcVVcatId452047VVviewcat.htm
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America http://www.iava.org/index.php
Matthew Scott
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:59:25 -0500, Matthew Scott
>> <sco...@interstate.awnings.com> wrote:
>>> NoName wrote:
>>> As for tin-pot dictators, the U.S. has supported several such
>>> regimes in the past in Latin and Central America. But we put
>>> up with them because they were of the right not the left. Have
>>> you forgotten our involvement in Chile and in El Salvador and
>>> Nicaragua? We supported brutal regimes in those cases and
>>> incurred fear and hostility from others in that area that has
>>> lasted well beyond those years.
>> As I said in this thread yesterday, "I was struck by how often the
>> complaints concerned long-past actions, mostly policies adopted and
>> actions taken during the Cold War to thwart Soviet expansionism. There
>> is little doubt that the U.S. did some bad things and supported some
>> sleazy folks in the fight against the "evils of communism". The question
>> is the motivation behind those policies and actions."
> OK. Point taken. Motivation? Hard to pin it down when dictatorial
> and brutal regimes either on the left or the right are equally
> threatening to the American way of life. The South and Central
> American regimes we supported used exactly the same brutal practices
> as the Soviet regime. So one could assume it was the ideology
> not the "evils" of communism per se that led to this support. That
> was what was so ironic to me at the time. It is sort of like having
> to make a choice between Stalin and Hitler. Which was the worst?
> We did take sides in that and it led to decades of trouble, although
> enabling the Allies to win World War II.
To my mind one of worst mistakes we made in the past was to adopt the
policy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". I don't agree with your
interpretation that it was the ideology of those Latin-American tin-pot
dictators that we supported -- the basic idea was to deny the Soviets
access to vulnerable countries. That most of those dictators were
"right-wing", whatever that means, was merely coincidental and not
essential to accomplishing our objective.
Your last point about Hitler, Stalin, and WW2 demonstrates this concept
clearly; the Allies won the war against Hitler with assistance from
Stalin because the objective was more easily achieved with his help. His
brutality and expansionism were not primary in the decision to ally with
him.
NoName
<sco...@interstate.awnings.com> wrote:
Essential or not the end result was the same. We supported regimes
that practiced the same undemocratic and brutal tactics as the
Soviets.
>
>Your last point about Hitler, Stalin, and WW2 demonstrates this concept
>clearly; the Allies won the war against Hitler with assistance from
>Stalin because the objective was more easily achieved with his help. His
>brutality and expansionism were not primary in the decision to ally with
>him.
An unfortunate byproduct. I understand why that choice was made and I
don't think at the time all that many of us knew of the Soviet abuses
that were fully revealed only after the war. I was a teen ager during
World War II and I remember a film "The North Star" that lauded the
Russians and their role in the war against Hitler. I am not saying
no one in the West knew but not the average citizen.
By the time we supported anti-Communist regimes in South and Central
America, though, all this was known.
But we can agree, I think that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is
not a sound basis for foreign policy in and of itself.
NoName
>I think there is a little hypocrisy going on here. The Left gets it's
>panties in a bunch over anti-communist regimes in Latin America, while
>Michael Moore films in Cuba and Danny Glover gives Hugo Chavez a big
>hug. Hmmm ...
Who is Danny Glover? Never heard of him.
Florida
But how is this possible? Not knowing who Danny Glover is... why,
that would imply you aren't cognizant of Mel Gibson's oeuvre...
Islander
Olly, I was in Washington at the time and am very aware of what Star
Wars cost. I give Reagan credit for what was probably the greatest
bluff of all time. The decision to start that program was not based on
technical feasibility. I know this because I worked at the agency
(DARPA) that had responsibility for the directed energy weapon research.
The director of that agency complained privately that the announcement
of the program caught him totally by surprise -- he and his program
managers had not been consulted. The program, such as it was, was
assembled by identifying existing programs and consolidating them under
a single manager. There was only a few billion dollars in new money
allocated.
The bluff worked because the Soviet Union was already on the verge of
economic collapse, in large part because of their war in Afghanistan on
top of three decades of an ill-conceived communist economy.
It was only after the Cold War ended that spending on Star Wars
technology increased dramatically.
The bulging national debt was primarily a consequence of the tax cuts
and increases in federal programs including defense and a great deal of
pork.
NoName
>I'm sure you would recognize him. Danny Glover is just another left
>wing Hollywood actor. After they got through hugging, Hugo agreed to
>finance a film.
>
>"VENEZUELA TO FINANCE DANNY GLOVER FILM: Movie chronicles Haiti’s
>slave rebellion against French rule.
>May 23, 2007
>
> *A new film project directed by actor Danny Glover has just
>secured funding from a country headed by one of the Bush
>administration’s most vocal critics.
>
> The congress in Venezuela announced Monday that it would give
>$19.7 million toward the production of two films, one of which is
>Glover's movie about Haiti's Francois-Dominique Toussaint Louverture,
>an iconic revolutionary leader in the Caribbean nation who led an
>18th-century slave rebellion against French rule.
>
> The funding comes as Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez seeks to
>draw attention to his own region’s battles against colonialism.
>
> Glover has been a longtime political supporter of Chavez, who is
>currently forging a socialist republic and politicizing the army and
>judiciary of the OPEC nation. The leader has encouraged Venezuelans to
>become better informed about Latin America's historical independence
>leaders, drawing parallels between their struggles and his
>government's antagonism with the United States.
>
> Glover, best known for his roles in the "Lethal Weapon"
>franchise and seen most recently in “Dreamgirls,” will make his debut
>as a feature film director with the Louverture project."
>http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur33770.cfm
No, I wouldn't recognize him. I saw neither movie and don't follow
Hollywood.
Islander
> [Default] On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:16:30 -0400, Old...@webtv.net (Olly
>
> NONAME IS RITA KINGKADE
Jim, you sound like a kid in grade school. You diminish yourself when
you stoop to this kind of thing.
Islander
> Islander wrote:
>
>>> Matthew Scott wrote:
>>> I strongly suspect that still to come is the rejection of anything
>>> remotely connected with the U.S. It won't be long before Venezuela
>>> and Mexico, maybe even Canada, certainly the Middle-East, cut off oil
>>> exports to the U.S. Charitable donations, government aid,
>>> trans-national companies; all will told to pack up and go home. The
>>> currently hostile U.N. will become more openly antagonistic. This
>>> attitude has been building for much, much longer than the past five
>>> or six years. We're in for some very interesting times.
>
>> I agree that this has been building for a long time and that the last
>> six years are just the icing on the cake. Bachevich in "The New
>> American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War" makes a good
>> case for how we have come to rely on militancy rather than alternative
>> approaches to our international affairs. This tenancy helps to paint
>> us as the bully. Even in Europe, our efforts to safeguard the world
>> from the Soviet threat allowed the European countries to minimize
>> their military spending while our military came to dominate the
>> region. They became dependent on us and it could be expected that
>> this would produce some resentment, especially when that power is used
>> to ride roughshod over many other issues. When we decided to invade
>> Iraq, that resentment bubbled to the surface as many countries started
>> to wonder what the impact of a new policy of preemptive war might
>> mean. Our early signal to the nations in Europe that they would not
>> participate in the production of Iraqi oil if they did not become part
>> of the coalition was also a clear signal of our intent to use
>> militarism to increase our economic power.
>
> This is really an interesting subject for thought and discussion. While
> concerns you mention are valid, and the cost/benefit ratios of the
> sacrifices demanded by the leadership position are increasingly brought
> into question, especially considering the hostility and resentment felt
> by recipients of our "largesse". I'm coming closer and closer to the
> conclusion that it's probably time for the U.S. to draw in its horns a
> little and let the rest of the world, particularly Europe and the EU,
> stew in their own juices for a while. I'm also sure that that will never
> happen -- TV shows films of starving orphans too often.
>
> I'm afraid that too many senior officials, military, civilian, and
> governmental, spent so many years "fighting" the Cold War that they
> don't know how to stop and are desperately searching for a new "axis of
> evil" to combat. Much of the schizophrenic behavior of the U.S. over the
> past fifteen years has been due to the "withdrawal symptoms" caused by
> the sudden collapse and disappearance of our greatest enemy. Habit
> patterns are hard to change. The largest portion of our population was
> shielded from knowledge of the majority of the effort that went into the
> Cold War. In retrospect, I'm not sure that this was a wise course to
> take. But who knows?
GWB studied history in college, but I wonder how much of it he retained.
There is an interesting parallel in the British Empire during the 19th
century and into the beginning of the 20th century. It is clear now
that while there were noble excuses given to the British people about
their many small wars associated with the expansion of the empire, the
real reasons were economic. I just finished reading "The Unveiling of
Lhasa" by Edmund Candler, a foreign correspondent who accompanied the
British troops in their invasion of Tibet in 1904. This was an
enormously expensive and difficult campaign, launched primarily because
of the strategic location of Tibet between India and China. It was all
about controlling trade in the region.
A friend had a great uncle who participated in that campaign and
suggested the book to me because of the similarities to our invasion of
Iraq.
On the larger stage, it is interesting to speculate about how much of
the Cold War was about economic power and how much was about ideology.
While the Soviet Union was wealthy in many natural resources, it was
also limited in many ways. There is not a lot of difference in their
efforts to gain political favor in third world countries than our own.
They needed cheap access to natural resources to expand their economy in
the same way that we did (and still do).
Roger
> [Default] On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:36:51 -0700, Islander
> to help her out. So, so sorryl
>
>
> Islander is Paul Losleben
> Islander is Paul Losleben
> Islander is Paul Losleben
>
>
> Anything else I can help you with? I am here to serve and offend
> (when trifled with).
Age 66?
Islander
> [Default] On Fri, 25 May 2007 19:10:54 -0500, Roger
> use the name his father gave him. Man has a fine record in employment
> and such and should not be ashamed of who is. Want to know who I am.
> Look for the name Ihave lived with all my life. Not ashamed of it.
>
> Looking foward to other net nannies to come out and play though! We
> can wrestle a bit maybe.
Jim, you are a hypocritical asshole. You get upset with people who are
net nannys, yet you just cast yourself in exactly that role. You
criticize people for using an alias, yet you defend Sordo who swaps
names frequently.
I choose to use an alias and it is my right to do so. I do not need to
plaster my name on posts to meet some standard that you seem to hold
above common courtesy. It was a tradition of the Arpanet and has
continued to be a tradition of the Internet. I have used the same alias
in all the time that I have used USENET and do not suppress archiving
like some do. Anyone who wants to can find out quite a lot about me on
the Internet and I am not a bit ashamed of any of it.
I sent you an honest opinion and you decided to turn it into some
childish game. Well, that says more about you than me.
NoName
wrote:
Here are some posters who use aliases:
El Castor, Olly Mensch, mg, Capitalist Pig (uses many), chatnoir,
George Z. Bush, Florida, marib, Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley, WOTH.
rick++, Sordo. I did not for years but began using one after
my name had been forged on posts that did not reflect in the least
my views.
Wonder why you are singled out by Jim, Islander? Why do the others
not "use the name their fathers gave them" to quote Stevens.
Possibly to spare themselves someone looking up their names and
addresses and posting them in the newsgroup? Busy little snoops
like to do that kind of thing. Guess who.