--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > > Shemp fancies himself a libertarian but I don't even think > > > he knows what one is. He sounds like the Ayn Rand variety > > > but I'm not even sure of that. I just think he's confused. :) > > > > I don't agree. After long experience with Shemp's > > provocative posts both here and on a.m.t., and > > more than a few exchanges in which he succeeded > > in provoking me :-), I think he's pondered many > > of the stances he takes here deeply. > > > > My only question is about the *input* for this > > pondering. I don't understand how he could have > > seen the same things I've seen in America and > > hold those views. I have to believe that we've > > lived in different places and seen a different > > America. > > Recast a bit, I think Shemp raises some good and reasonable points. > For example: > > * Steps to address Global Climate Change should be subject to > cost-benefit analysis and ranked along with competing social > needs/opportunities. > > * There are different levels of lack in the world > > * The term 'poverty" is relative to its social context. > > * There have been many mass(million+)-murdering tyrants and movements > in long and recent history. > - We should keep that as some context when looking viewing and > analyzing current autrocities. > - We should include awareness of those "means" in any ends achieved > by such. > > However, IMO, its his polarized polemics, highly-charge with > 'power/skunk" words in his exposition of such, and his apparent > superficial study of underlying issues of some of these ares (e.g., > global climate change), IMO hugely diminish the effectiveness of his > catalyzing intelligent discussion and/or expaning anyones views on the > topic. > > Probably I see these faults in Shemps expositions, because I have done > or do the same in some areas -- to some degree -- perhaps more, > perhaps less. One focuses on perceived faults in others when, though > perhaps not only, they have or are dealing with that trait within > themselves. Thus, the value I find in Shemps polarizations and > simplistic renditions is as a cautionary tale -- and/or stimulus to > search deep within to see if i do the same in some areas. And to root > it out if I do. > > As a reader, I might start to take Shemp seriously if he toned down > the rhetoric and black-and-white analysis, and presented the issues he > raises in more humble, studied and approachable terms. >
Geez, this guy knows me better than I know myself. I think his assessment is pretty right on. Yes, it's true my rhetoric is very black and white...and provocative. That's me and I suppose I could win friends and influence people alot better if I did a more humble etc. approach. But who has the patience, especially with Judy hanging around. Did you know that Judy actually once questioned whether she would continue doing TM after a round of exchanges with me? So if I tone down my rhetoric we won't have precious moments like that anymore. 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
