Hi Ant,
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > RE-SEND with formatting corrected AND extra pussy... (riot) comment! > > J: I went "woohoo! and then... oh" > ---------------------------------------- > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ant McWatt quoted John "the Evangelist" > McConnell: > > "There's no point igniting a God-bomb in that bunch of theophobes on MD. > Here at least you and I understand each other. You know I'm not out to > evangelize you, and you are at least tolerant of my faith." > > > John Carl made a bad mouse impression to Ant McWatt, March 5th: > > Eek. I've been chastised in the past forposting offline comments online, > but nothing as egregiously incendiary. > John M must hold some very unpopular views to be treated so. > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > No John. Firstly, this off-line post was blocked (almost certainly by > Micros0ft) because the main body of my off-line reply to John contained the > term "Russ1a". This was the only way I could reply to John (and > the other intended recipient who will remain nameless). > > Secondly, the main body of John M's e-mail remained private. I actually > rang-up him (via a trans-Atlantic phone call) that evening to explain what > had happened. > > J: That's very gratifying to hear, Ant. We haven't really had much intercourse yet and I'm not absolutely positive of your integrity but this is very reassuring. You seem like a good guy. Ant: Thirdly, if Horse has reprimanded you for posting off-line comments at MOQ > Discuss then you were almost doing something out-of-order. > > Jc: Heh. well, yeah, probably. I remember the incident vaguely and there wasn't any real ill-will in it. An honest mistake, such as yours. > > Ant McWatt continued March 4th 2014: > > > Well, I wouldn't worry about this too much. As I said to Paco > > recently, Horse (being rather political AND a pragmatist is rather like > > me and I think Paco too). If someone is helping out the vulnerable of > > this world then they can call themselves the Pope, the Czar of Russia > > or even the "Queen of England" (aka Grayson Perry ;-) ) as far as I'm > > concerned as long as they are helping out with this critical objective > > especially with the recent dominance in recent decades of multi- > > nationals, right-wing governments and a rather corrupt and "loaded" > (especially against the poor) global banking system!!! > > > John Carl continued: > > An interesting point in light of recent developments with Russia and the > Crimea. Would you call Putin's government "right wing", Ant? I'd > certainly say it was an intellectually - guided government. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > I have just two words to say to this glib comment: "PUSSY RIOT" (my > favourite band - to look at anyway) i.e. would an intellectually guided > government really be that threatened by a girl group mouthiung off a bit in > a Church? > > Jc: Again at first glance I was like, wtf? And then I noticed the caveat - "to look at". Cuz they sound like cats being shaken in a garbage can. I'm not a complete expert on Russia, but I know this - its not like other places. They just love a leader that wrestles bears, poses with supermodels and is seen beating Einstein at Chess. I doubt you could call all that macho display "Intellectual" but it's certainly very, very smart. The Russian genius is that it's very much in touch with its Romantic side. > > John Carl continued March 5th: > > They've been very smart. We didn't realize it at the time but when we > granted the powers of global banking and free market capitalism to the > Russian mindset - they just love a good strong hegemony - we were opening > up a pandora's box of infinite future trouble. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Just sounds like Anti-Russian propaganda to me. Tell it to your red neck > friends at the local golf club bar. > Jc: Your misreading me. But I seem to recall a post correcting this misperception. I'm more of a russophile than most. I thought Putin's speech when he came to Texas was outstanding. But if America is going to insist on antagonism towards Russia, it's in for infinite future trouble - for the reasons stated above. Ant: > > Otherwise, I think most political commentators - who know what they are > talking about - think the early 1990s (just after the end of > the Cold War) was a lost opportunity. If the West had actually helped > Russia a little more with reforming their political institutions etc > (rather than basking in smart ass triumphalism) then we would probably not > be in the situation where we find ourselves today with the Ukraine. > > Jc: Exactly. Amen. That's my point. Ant: > Anyway, as far as the four main political players in the region are > concerned (the new national government of the Ukraine, the Russian > government, the EU and the USA) all should be given credit for the lack > of bloodshed in the region - so far. Maybe that's the power of the global > media and the internet (where it has become more difficult to hide > atrocities). Either way, it shows a move to reaching political solutions > through talking rather than using weapons which can only be a good thing. > > > ----CUT---------- > > > John Carl continued March 5th: > > > America with its openness and freedom... > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Think again John (and maybe get a passport while you're at it too). With > all those guns around on my last United States tirp in December 2012 (I was > in Vegas the same evening a guy got shot to death in a casino near me) and, > a few days later, drove through Sandy Hook, Connecticut > just a day before the atrocity with that heavily armed disturbed teenager, > I actually now find the States quite a repressed place to be in - despite > the candy coated appearances. I just feel if you say the wrong thing to > the wrong guy in the wrong bar, there's far more chance that you'll have > your head blown off with a gun than you would in the UK where people (other > than a few city centre gangsters - who just tend to blow each other away > than "members of the public") simply don't carry guns around. As ever a > little black humour shows my concerns in this regard: > > Jc: Usually guns come into play when there's violence. On the whole, there's not much violence. If you don't start any trouble, you won't get into trouble. But then, maybe I've got a skewed view, I'm in California and when it comes to it - California is a whole different thing. Most of the gun nuts leave California cuz the liberal attitudes around here drives 'em crazy. Take Care, JohnC PS: I'll be pretty busy for a week or so, hanging out with Randy. We've had some fascinating discussions already and that's just the first day! His main areas of expertise are James, Peirce, Dewey and Whitehead and Royce so he's definitely an MoQ kinda guy. He told me yesterday that if he were on a desert island and only had one philosopher to take with him, it'd be James. But at the same time, he's very fond of my old mentor - George Sessions so this is just heaven having him here in Grass Valley. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
