--- In [email protected], "Jeff Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > Nice job: Confronting suppression. They are cowards and wilt > when one > > > stands his ground. > > > > > Jeff > > > > Its a nice story. However, I have found in my experience, such > direct > > confrontations do not usually have such a happy ending. > > Responses-in-kind usually create escalating responses-in-kind, > > pitta-levles and ego issues flair and a "small" issue grows to a > > larger issue, ultimately on that is harder to resolve. > > I agree. The story was Unc's. By confront I mean willing to face > without flinching. Unc didn't directly confront (in sense of > confrontation) the guy in his story. His friend (in his previous > story) did not flinch in the face of his inquisitors. He didn't > battle either, but I feel "confronted" them in the sense I used above. > Unc put the ball in the other guy's court (by throwing his clothes > out the window) to create a real "confrontation" The guy didn't > pursue it, but wilted instead. I believe we are actually in > agreement here. :-)
I was not arguing with you. :) Just presenting a POV st imulated by Unc's post. > That being said, sometimes a real "confrontation" is necessary when > one doesn't do something to the point where things are so dangerous > that direct confrontation is necessary (eg Chamberlain & Hitler). > This can be averted IMO by standing one's ground at the outset. > The "bully" will usually just back down. Its interesting people always use the Hitler and appeasment card. (some sage on the list in prior years said that if you mention Hitler in your argument you automatically lose. Thats because its too extreme an analogy in almost all circumstances. And its a no-brainer "how can you argue if favor of Hitler".) But what is most interesting is that the appeasement card apears to imply that Hitler just popped up out of nowhere, no casue. I find it more germaine to not ask "What about Hilter!!???" but question the wisdom of the Treaty of Versaille which created the harsh and impossible to comply with conditions in post war (WWI) Germany that led to the conditions where i) a Hitler could rise to power based on extremist promises, and ii) created / enabled a national mood of vidictiveness against the war's victors / booty looters. Further, why don't people ask what WWI was really about (hint -- it was not "to make the world safe for democracy"). It was the inevitable collision of quite cruel and bloody Imperialist powers seeking to sustain and even expand their Empires. Churchill was clear on this, he said he valued the British Empire above all things, and sought to promote and maintain it with his every breath and that WWI was crucial to maintain the Emprire. So, in simplifed story cards, a whole bunch of, immoral IMO, Imperialst Empires had a huge gang fight in WWI, and the victors "raped and pillaged" the losers. And when the losers later got pissed off and sought revenge, we puffed out our chests and said "we can't be appeasers!". Why didn't we lower our heads in humility a 100 years earlier and say, "this imperialst empire thing is horrible, it is what our (the US) revolution aimed to end, and we are not going to be a part of it. And to the extent we can, we will work for a fair and equitable resolution to the conflict of these mad and vicious gangs masquerading as honor- bound refined glorious gentlemen." To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
