On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:48:51 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:01:54 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> >> This is most clearly the act of a most depraved,
>> >> sociopathic, and criminal band of barbarian marauders. To protect
>> >> civilized society from their kind, they must either be exterminated or
>> >> put into cages.
>> > How sad that "we" seem to have devolved back to
>> > crying for the establishment of another Manzanar
>> > (or worse).
>> The above statement was in no way intended to have been
>> interpreted as a call for the establishment of concentration
>> camps for any national or ethnic group or religious organization.
>> It was offered only as the expression of an anti-crime sentiment.
>> Among those who fit into the same category of barbarian marauders
>> described above I would include also Timothy McVeigh and the
>> Unabomber Kazinski and their ilk. You will note that the
>> statement makes no reference to any race, nationality, or religion.
> I was pretty sure you weren't calling for the
> establishment of such. Note the word "seem."
I did note your use of the word "seem". I agree that there is a
very small minority of Americans who do "seem" to be advocating the
establishment of another Manzanar. Almost all Americans have
acknowledged that Manzanar was a most dreadful mistake. We will
not allow anything like this to happen again.
> However, a term such as "their kind" is sufficiently
> vague, yet inclusive, as to have been able to easily
> convey that implication. Those words you used which
> do have more specific meanings also point away from
> a McVeigh/Kazinski meaning:
It should have been clear to you that I was not using the
term "their kind" to refer to any particular gene pool, but
rather to a group of individuals who have by their own volition
cultivated some quite appalling and non-hereditary mind-sets
and behavioral abberations.
> barbarian, n. a member of a people or group with a
> civilization regarded as primitive, savage, etc.
The term barbarian may also be applied to any member of
a group of terrorists or cutthroats.
> marauder, n. a rover in search of booty or plunder;
> a plunderer; a freebooter
The term is used also in another context as a name given
to any member of an organization which has earned a reputation
for attacking very swiftly and with great shock and surprise.
As used in this context the word is not defammatory, as it may
be quite aptly applied to either enemy or to friendly forces.
(q.v. Merrill's Marauders.) BTW, there was a WWII medium
bomber aircraft know as the Martin B-26 Marauder.
> exterminate, v.t. to destroy completely; to wipe out;
> to extirpate; as, to exterminate weeds or vermin
Yes, that is exactly what it means. I know of no other
context or any other shade of meaning for the use of the term.
> That's one of the greatest problems with such
> inflammatory rhetoric. It's hardly ever very specific,
> so is easily open to misinterpretation.
I do not see it as inflammatory rhetoric and I don't feel that
it is very easily open to misinterpretation. Some people may
fail to understand me. Even if I were as perfect in my
expression as Jesus Christ many people would fail to understand
me.
<snip>
> Justice and vengeance are two quite different goals,
> and the language used to advocate them needs to also
> be kept quite distinct.
Yes, I agree. We should honor and respect those who pursue
justice and we should get even with those who are just
seeking vengeance.
> To summarize, you seem to be speaking the language of
> vengeance when we should be speaking the language of
> justice.
Please see my oxymoronic drivel stated in my last paragraph
above. In the months ahead you will see a lot of similar
nonsense coming from our political leaders.
Sam Heywood
-- See our Big Gizmotimetemp at
-- http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig/US/VA/Mt_Jackson.gif
