Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the british by not using the information. But by the way why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in something this important the british could share their specific information. I would suspect that more often than not in situations like this the info would be shared. I would very upset to learn that we and our allies shared only conclusions not evidence. Gautam Mukunda wrote: The British have stated that their source (informed speculation is French intelligence, but no one knows for sure) refused them permission to share the evidence, only the conclusions. This is very ordinary in the intelligence world, where sources and methods are prized above all things. So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Milky Way
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:45 AM 8/2/03 +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: However, there's at least one spiral galaxy which apparently rotates backwards: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_33.html Must be in the Southern Hemisphere. Nah, only if it's upside-down. Another would-be astronomical comic heard from . . . ;-) Hey, I've learnt to make appropriate adjustments by standing on my head when I make astronomical observations! Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Saturday, August 2, 2003, at 03:00 am, Deborah Harrell wrote: I have heard the name of Noam Chomsky - um, I thought he was a poet... Anyone who has studied either linguistics or computer science has definitely come across Chomsky. As for his political writings - geniuses are often strange people. There have been Nobel prize winners with very odd/abhorrent ideas outside their own field. (eg William Shockley). Book Description: The Minimalist Program consists of four recent essays that attempt to situate linguistic theory in the broader cognitive sciences. In these essays the minimalist approach to linguistic theory is formulated and progressively developed. Building on the theory of principles and parameters and, in particular, on principles of economy of derivation and representation, the minimalist framework takes Universal Grammar as providing a unique computational system, with derivations driven by morphological properties, to which the syntactic variation of languages is also restricted. Within this theoretical framework, linguistic expressions are generated by optimally efficient derivations that must satisfy the conditions that hold on interface levels, the only levels of linguistic representation... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262531283/104-7650737- 8541513 head jerks up from obfuscationist-babble-induced near-coma That's not obfuscationist babble, that's jargon! The Chomsky Hierarchy Regular languages- Finite automata Context-free languages - Pushdown automata Context-sensitive languages - Linear bounded automata Recursively enumerable languages - Turing machines -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: NYT: Weapons of Mass Confusion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This speculation raises several questions in my mind: if Saddam destroyed his nukes - WHY DIDN'T HE TELL US??? That's what we wanted, after all, what we were demanding, the ostensible reason for the invasion. Why do what he was supposed to but not gain any benefit from doing so? Let us invade anyway? He's a nutcase, but I don't see how this makes any sense from his point of view. Also, did we know he was doing it? (We meaning the CIA, the president, etc.) Could the destruction have been detected from outside Iraq's borders using spy satellites, etc.? And, if we did know - did we invade anyway because the president wanted his invasion? (This will piss off the Bush-is-wonderful-and-so-is-the-war crowd on this list, but it has to be asked in light of other suggestions that the president and his chickenhawk warmongers either cooked the intelligence books or ignored contradictory evidence or both.) Come on Tom, think! If you know he has no WMD handy, isn't that the ideal time to clobber him? It's a no-brainer. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Julia Thompson wrote: Ray Ludenia wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. OK, how is the balance between a chocolate chip on one shoulder and a butterscotch chip on the other, if they're of the same mass? :) By the way, would anyone know where this saying came from and what sort of chip? Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
At 11:21 PM 8/2/2003 +1000, you wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Ray Ludenia wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. OK, how is the balance between a chocolate chip on one shoulder and a butterscotch chip on the other, if they're of the same mass? :) By the way, would anyone know where this saying came from and what sort of chip? Regards, Ray. http://www.wordwizard.com/clubhouse/founddiscuss.asp?Num=3796 The earliest printed instance of the phrase listed in the Oxford English Dictionary comes from the Long Island Telegraph newspaper in May, 1830. This citation also provides what is probably a good explanation of the origin of the phrase: When two churlish boys were determined to fight, a chip would be placed on the shoulder of one, and the other demanded to knock it off at his peril. (The chip was, in that age of wood stoves, most likely a chip of wood.) Evidently this belligerent ritual of childhood was sufficiently widespread at the time to become a grownup metaphor for combativeness, as it has been ever since. Writing from England - there is a much earlier origin for the phrase chip on your shoulder which arose from a dispute in the 18th century with the carpenters at Chatham dockyard (the yard which built Nelson's flagship Victory). These men commonly carried wood on their shoulders during construction work - carpenters are still often referred to in the UK as chippies. Helping where I can. Took me four tries to google a good response. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: My exciting day!
From: Reggie Bautista [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yikes! I'm glad everything went well. How did you first discover the granuloma? At first, I had a symptom where it felt like there was something in my throat all the time. My doctor, unfortunately, misdiagnosed it and thought it was allergies. After that I started getting really, really hoarse. Finally I got sent to an ENT who looked down my throat with one of those little cameras in a tube and he saw the granuloma. A bit of a shock. Even more so, when I discovered they have a 80-85% recurrence rate when surgically removed. (As I have definitely proved the hard way!) I'm feeling much better today, btw. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intent and language
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 7:08 PM Subject: Re: Intent and language On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 05:21:49PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I have gone over your posts to make sure my memory wasn't faulty, and I do see a great number of you ...some negative statements. Things like you think wrong, you have let yourself fall in a trap, etc. It appears that you are now arguing that you are really very concerned for the flaws in all of our thinking and really really wish to help us think clearer. Again, you misunderstand what I wrote in the thread under discussion. Are you again going to claim that it was not misunderstanding? You mean did I miss the fact that you were playing the look at me, I'm so clever, I'm mocking someone with their own words game? No, I just considered that of secondary importance. In my reply to Jan I was stating my opinion that he should not take your insults seriously because you insult a lot of very fine people. I'm not really all that concerned with the reasons you have for doing so. I did not argue any such generality in this thread. I was talking specifically about the thread with Jan. Well, I thought you were replying to my post. Silly me. irony As for the rest of the comments that were written in the message I am replying to, I, like David Brin, find passive aggressiveness much more disagreeable than sarcasm or straightforwardness, which I (and others) often employ. ORIFLAMME. My wife has taught assertiveness training for over 20 years. I've taken a number of management courses that discuss aggressive, passive aggressive, and assertive. I was giving the classic explanation for assertive. You posts are often a good example of aggressive. Some people portray themselves as email list social experts, but I haven't forgotten that such people were at the center of the list's biggest falling out where we lost not only David Brin for a long time, but a number of other long time list members as well. Now would be a good time to make a passive aggressive comment about how I am trying to gig people :-\ /irony OK, since you like blunt, I'll be just a bit blunt. I never cease to be amazed by the arrogance of ignorance. You don't know what happened, and your speculation is worse than useless. The only point I can see is trying to get people to act out of anger. Further, before you use a term, like passive aggressive, it would be helpful to learn its meaning. If you wish, I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. If you don't want to know, that's your business. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intent and language
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:17:24PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: You mean did I miss the fact that you were playing the look at me, I'm so clever, I'm mocking someone with their own words game? What happened to I'll be happy to assume good intentions? No, I just considered that of secondary importance. Right, it is more important to play the passive agressive game and say how evil I am and how clever you are to recognize it. Well, I thought you were replying to my post. Silly me. I was replying to your comment about Jan, which I quoted. I didn't say anything about your excessive generalizations. You posts are often a good example of aggressive. I didn't realize this was in dispute? OK, since you like blunt, I'll be just a bit blunt. I never cease to be amazed by the arrogance of ignorance. You don't know what happened, and your speculation is worse than useless. The only point I can see is trying to get people to act out of anger. As I predicted you would respond. Interesting that you accuse me of not understanding your situation, but you assume you understand mine. Further, before you use a term, like passive aggressive, it would be helpful to learn its meaning. If you wish, I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. If you don't want to know, that's your business. Talk about arrogance! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intent and language
Dan Minette wrote: ORIFLAMME. ORIFLAMME? OK, I know that my mind is being dissolved by so many hormones and so many other things to think about (such as pending lactation), but I can't figure this one out even with some effort. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intent and language
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:57 PM Subject: Re: Intent and language Dan Minette wrote: ORIFLAMME. ORIFLAMME? OK, I know that my mind is being dissolved by so many hormones and so many other things to think about (such as pending lactation), but I can't figure this one out even with some effort. Spell checker gone wild? ROTFLMAO grin Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... Katha Pollitt, among many other things, famously forbade her daughter from flying an American flag after September 11th because it was a symbol of, IIRC, jingoism and hate. If that _doesn't_ bother you, then it explains why the left has no traction in the United States. Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. Cite please. I'm unaware of any democratic or republican politico who said 'What he did was right, and lying about it was expected and acceptable.' Just because a late night talk show comedian like Bill Maher says it doesn't mean he is speaking for the American people. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Intent and language
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julia Thompson Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 1:58 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Intent and language Dan Minette wrote: ORIFLAMME. ORIFLAMME? OK, I know that my mind is being dissolved by so many hormones and so many other things to think about (such as pending lactation), but I can't figure this one out even with some effort. Probably not what Dan meant, but that was the name given to a French-designed VTOL single-stage to orbit craft, if I'm not mistaken. It never got out of the blueprint design stage. Was supposed to be a huge improvement on the space shuttle. I could be wrong. It's been a long time. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 04:34 PM 8/2/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. Cite please. I'm unaware of any democratic or republican politico who said 'What he did was right, and lying about it was expected and acceptable.' Just because a late night talk show comedian like Bill Maher says it doesn't mean he is speaking for the American people. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never accused any Democrat of saying those words, and as such it is wholly unreasonable for you to expect me to find them. Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this. In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd. Many Democrats did argue that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for making such a claim was to attempt to mitigate the charges against Clinton, and as such, defend him. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: ... Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this. In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd. Many Democrats did argue that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for making such a claim was to attempt to mitigate the charges against Clinton, and as such, defend him. John-- I think you are splitting hairs here. I believe that everybody else in this exchange is interpreting defended Clinton as said that Clinton was right to lie. You seem to be using it here in the broader sense of made any argument in support of Clinton. With this sense, you are of course right. Congratulations, you've won an argument. Unfortunately, it was not WITH anybody, since we seem to be using words differently. : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 3:52 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. JDG Yes, but that doesn't make it right, just understandable. So the comment stands: Not one said he was right. Agreed. To me, the big difference is that Clinton was attacked because of his PERSONAL life, while Bush is being attacked about his PROFESSIONAL life. Also Agreed. Given his past use of illegal drugs, I find it deeply hypocritical that Bush does not push for reduced penalties for their use. (While his position seems now to be that his past drug use was wrong, he is then asking to be forgiven for it. Why should this forgiveness not be extended to present users?) But this is an example of an attack based on Bush's personal life. Oh, but this I don't agree with. You obviously have never heard him give an interview on the subject. On Oprah, while he was running, Bush said that he was an alcoholic, saw how badly it screwed up his own life, joined AA and is now in favor of more drastic punishment for offenders because of it. I don't think that's at all hypocritical. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
What democrats said that it was acceptable for Clinton to lie under oath? I don't know what other Democrats may have said. I never said it was acceptable for him to lie under oath. I just didn't think it was an impeachable offense. I also think he should never have been forced to face that deposition, since Paula Jones's case was, in my opinion, purely politically motivated by people who hated Clinton no matter what he did. That said, he should have told the truth. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. -- Matt No, he used information from _British_ intelligence, which had seen the supporting data, via another intelligence service. Additionally, _usually_ when people admit something that is against their interests it is more, not less, likely to be true. That the French supplied information making Iraq look worse makes it more, not less, likely that the information is accurate. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words --- Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. -- Matt No, he used information from _British_ intelligence, which had seen the supporting data, via another intelligence service. Additionally, _usually_ when people admit something that is against their interests it is more, not less, likely to be true. That the French supplied information making Iraq look worse makes it more, not less, likely that the information is accurate. How likely is it that the French deliberately set Bush ? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. ---David The prosecution rests. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Over the pond next week
I'm going to Scotland tomorrow to see my son, Ted, in Shogun MacBeth at the Churchhill theater in Edinburg. I'll be staying with friends who live north of Aberdeen. One of the side benefits of Teri being on leave with Continental. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How likely is it that the French deliberately set Bush ? Dan M. Ah, now _there_ you have the billion dollar question. I'm suspicious enough of the French to say it's possible, but I don't think it's likely. I frankly don't think that the French government is competent enough to go through the chain of logic that it would require - i.e. The Americans _are_ going to invade, we can't stop them, therefore we can supply false intelligence, which they will probably use, which we can embarass them with later. French policy seems, to me, to be more easily ascribed to a combination of malice and incompetence than the sort of Machiavellian genius that would require. They haven't shown any signs of that since Austerlitz, so it seems unlikely it would pop up in 2002 all of a sudden. They would also be taking a terrible risk - the total collapse of intelligence cooperation between the US/Britain/their allies and France. That's not something that anyone wants, not even de Villepin. But it's certainly _possible_. It would be consistent with the simplest possible explanation of French motivations (i.e. that the driving force of French foreign policy is the weakening of the United States). It just seems, to me, unlikely that they were thinking that far ahead. Definitely something worth thinking about. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. The prosecution rests. Huh? What does that mean? How does what he said prove the case? It seems to me the opposite. She has been put forward as an example of an extremist whom liberals should denounce. But the examples given make her seem somewhat less extreme to me than, say, a person writing a book essentially accusing every liberal in American history of being deliberate traitors, or of a religious leader blaming Americans he disagrees with for a terrorist attack on our country. If you want to argue that the left needs to police itself the way you claim the right does, I would respond that I don't know of too many left-wingers who get the kind of attention that Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson do. Noam Chomsky is an extremist, but he has about as much influence in world politics as I do. It's a simple matter of who is listening - Coulter and Robertson get more attention because they get more attention. They SHOULD be denounced, by everyone. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
From: William T Goodall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm 1115 behind :) I don't know whether to admit defeat or not... It's not as bad as another list where I am 41359 behind... I think it's time to quit that particular list! Sheesh, and I thought 200 behind was bad... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Loo-tin-at Ker-nal. Ah, heck. I can't spell Lt either. One of those words that I've never been able to get down. Kinda like caffeine, vacuum and torture. (Spell check caught those!) - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter 5 (spoilers)
Spoiler warning! . . . . . . . . . Reggie Bautista wrote: David Hobby wrote: I kept hoping that Harry's anger would be partially explained as psychic overflow from Voldermort. I guess that it still could be, but the evidence so far points to Harry being a rather large jerk... But s many people are total jerks at 15, yet change considerably as they mature. Considering what we found out about his father... :-) Actually, I think Harry being a jerk is just part of growing up. He has defeated Moldywarts... um, Voldemort... several times previously, and everytime he has had a different opinion from anyone else, he has turned out to be right. Voldemort at full strength mopped the floor with Harry. The only reason Harry survived at all was incomplete intelligence leading to poor strategy by Voldemort. If Voldemort had known the full prophecy, he would have made sure to kill Harry at the first good opportunity. Also, since he understands Harry's blood protection enough to want to use Harry's blood to re-incarnate, he should understand at least part of the prophecy. At this point, only Harry and Voldemort can raise a fist to each other in anger, anyone else would find their body parts dissovling on touch. Now that he had discovered he can be very, very wrong, I think he'll be a little less bitter and a little more wise. We can only hope that he gains wisdom. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. ---David The prosecution rests. This thread has been snipped too much for most people to follow you, I'm afraid. I would guess that you are trying to say something like the following? Katha Pollit is an extreme Leftist. David Hobby is a Leftist. David Hobby did not criticize Katha Pollit. Therefore, Leftists do not properly criticize their extremists. This argument has many flaws, but the most important one is that I do not have any clear idea of who Katha Pollit is, and might well have misspelled her name repeatedly. : ) I was responding to YOUR examples of her extremism. She might well be extreme, I don't know. But the example you gave of avoiding the symbolism of the American flag does not seem very extreme to me. So either YOU need to provide better examples of her extremism, or I am an extremist too. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
At 05:33 PM 8/2/03 -0500, Horn, John wrote: From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Loo-tin-at Ker-nal. Ah, heck. I can't spell Lt either. Unlike the old joke about engineer, I never learned how to spell it correctly despite being one. One of those words that I've never been able to get down. Kinda like caffeine, I spell it 1,3,7-trimethyl-2,6-dihydroxypurine then I don't have to remember whether it's ie or ei . . . vacuum and torture. (Spell check caught those!) One of the results of writing religious satire has been that I finally learned how to spell sacrilegious correctly i.e., *not* sac- + religious by reading the comments I receive in response to some of my submissions . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? What question? There isn't a question mark in the above statement. Erik wrote I think he meant the question why do they hate us or something like that. His implication is that you haven't thought about it because it makes you uncomfortable. Sounds like he lives in the same world as David. I originally dismissed this post, but it got under my skin enough to go back and dig it out since I might finally see a nuance in the part of our past discussions of why we should seek to understand others views. Seems like self reflction got thrown out with the proverbial bath water. Self refection doesn't mean one must act or sell out, one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The discussion seems to have taken a turn that even considering why others hate is un'merican in some way. Without ongoing self reflection how can a country progress? Differences in how we progress are the next level of discussion in my mind- the issue of constantly monitoring the environment of our allies and foes doesn't seem to be an option in my mind if we are to interact in a global world. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:28:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? What question? There isn't a question mark in the above statement. Erik wrote I think he meant the question why do they hate us or something like that. His implication is that you haven't thought about it because it makes you uncomfortable. Sounds like he lives in the same world as David. Seems like self reflction got thrown out with the proverbial bath water. Self refection doesn't mean one must act or sell out, one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The discussion seems to have taken a turn that even considering why others hate is un'merican in some way. I didn't see that at all. I think all of the people quoted above have thought about why terrorists might hate the US. Nevertheless, Gautam was accused of having not thought about it. On the contrary, I think Gautam has thought about it, but he obviously disagrees with the conclusion above, that we should act in such a way as to assuage their anger, [then] they won't attack us any more. I also disagree with this conclusion. While I haven't been impressed with US diplomacy recently, I think it is absurd to conclude that terrorists would leave the US alone if the US were less unilateral. A number of good reasons were already mentioned for this in this thread, so I won't repeat them here. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This argument has many flaws, but the most important one is that I do not have any clear idea of who Katha Pollit is, and might well have misspelled her name repeatedly. : ) I was responding to YOUR examples of her extremism. She might well be extreme, I don't know. But the example you gave of avoiding the symbolism of the American flag does not seem very extreme to me. So either YOU need to provide better examples of her extremism, or I am an extremist too. ---David No, David, you proved my much larger point. Congratulations, _you_ are the perfect example for why the left has no relevance to American politics today. You pegged it in one - I do say you're an extremist too. If you really feel that it's reasonable to call the American flag a symbol of hatred - which you have just repeatedly said you do - you have just proven my larger point about the collapse of the left far better than I ever could. Out of your own mouth. I couldn't have _asked_ for a better post to make my point. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Huh? What does that mean? How does what he said prove the case? It seems to me the opposite. She has been put forward as an example of an extremist whom liberals should denounce. But the examples given make her seem somewhat less extreme to me than, say, a person writing a book essentially accusing every liberal in American history of being deliberate traitors, or of a religious leader blaming Americans he disagrees with for a terrorist attack on our country. Except, of course, every major figure on the right has repudiated both of the people you are referring to. National Review - to pick an example - has run multiple massive attacks on both, making precisely the argument that both of them are a disgrace. Let's see The Nation do that to Pollitt. Oh, wait, she _edits_ The Nation. Hmmm. If you want to argue that the left needs to police itself the way you claim the right does, I would respond that I don't know of too many left-wingers who get the kind of attention that Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson do. Noam Chomsky is an extremist, but he has about as much influence in world politics as I do. It's a simple matter of who is listening - Coulter and Robertson get more attention because they get more attention. They SHOULD be denounced, by everyone. They _are_. But their counterexamples aren't. You, Tom, are so far gone in your hatred of everyone who disagrees with you that you can't see that there are people on your side of the fence who are equally vile as Coulter and Falwell. But unlike Coulter and Falwell, people like Chomsky, Pollitt, and Michael Moore are lauded as heroes. That's the difference, and it's why all your rage and venom has about as much relevance to what's really going in American civic discourse as, well, Chomsky and Pollitt. Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
