The issue to me is what is meant by "in line". The occupiers might
conceivably want a tiny bit more "dissent" than they're getting (as a
gauge and safety valve).
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On a more brutal note, if an occupying force tries to keep an occupied
> village of 100 in line by shooting one villager (and this to a large degree
> is successful) do we say that those who get the message are now self
> censoring or have effective selection processes taken place. Whatever, an
> effective alignment of occupier values and goals is now put in place.
> People understand what is wanted and understand the price to pay for
> changing the alignment.
>
>
> arthur cordell
> ----------
> From: Timework Web
> To: Michael Gurstein
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Blaming the victors
> Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:22PM
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> > Assuming that such consistency is achieved (through effective selection
> > processes, often including psychological evaluation, for example), then no
> > censorship, self or otherwise is required...
>
> That's explicitly assuming an awful lot and implicitly assuming even
> more. I'll stick with the self-censorship explanation. Now, how about
> coffee?
>
>
> Tom Walker
>
Tom Walker
