Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United > > > States has now > > > let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and > > > counting) on > > > its dispute with Iraq? > > > > <g> > > > > "..the US has *let* the UN deliberate..."? > > > > Interesting terminology there, JDG. :) > > I think John meant "let" the UN debate endlessly without the > US taking any > further action unilaterally or otherwise.
Oh, I know what he meant. I just thought that the choice of words was amusing in the context of the thrust of his mail. Amusing not because I thought 'Aha! I got JDG!', but rather because it seemed a bit careless given both the subject and JDG's personal dynamics with some other listees. I was attempting a bit of harmless teasing. Quite dismally, apparently. > I know its fairly fashionable for Non-Americans to view the > US government in > as cynical a light as possible, Fashions change, on a frequent basis. :) > but it is a bit less than > nice to take the > same approach with individual Americans. Yes, it is. I am curious why you assumed I was doing that. And I wonder if JDG will react the same way when he reads my mail. > The point I'm trying to make is that your response has the > effect of being > more polarizing than Johns original statement. How? I am not trying to be argumentative here but am genuinely curious. > I think all of us could take a moment to wear someone elses > shoes and see > how our words would sound to their ears. (Sheesh, what a sentence) <g> Well, the meaning was clear in any case. But the problem is that I don't see how I could have changed the way it was perceived. I mean, I know why I wrote the above comment, I included a '<g>' and ':)' to indicate I was joking.... Would ';)' have been a better emoticon? Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
