Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
Chip's offlist fight with listadmin ended well for all concerned, IMHO, I'm glad Chip agrees. Definitely offlist stuff, the list wasn't deprived of anything. Raking up old coals isn't always a good idea, and this would just have been a distraction or worse. I think there's a lot of offlisting going on all the time, from what I can make out a lot of members seem to do it. It's healthy, I don't think it deprives anyone of anything, maybe the opposite. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of onlist interaction. Chip wrote: I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a lively off-list debate... If all posts on that thread were screened, I disagree with your assessment. However, I agree with subsequent screening/deleting after the list members had a chance to read and dissent to the initial posts. To my knowledge Keith tries to give the list a chance to respond to every post and it's understood (IMO) that members who have nothing but antagonism to offer, are removed. This is usually done with all the transparency he can afford. Thankyou. That's true, or as true as I can make it. There are also various ways of trying to prevent the antagonism arising in the first place, but such things can only go so far before they do more harm than good. A bit of a balancing act. If it looks this way from the other end, as Mike says, then I'm well pleased: This forum proves that a loose framework is very effective at maintaining individual freedoms while allowing it's membership to participate in maintaining continuity. By the way, Mike: It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). Strangely, IMO, the big list owners group at Yahoo does that, everybody's screened, not just newcomers on auto-moderation for their first posts like most groups. It's not run by Yahoo, it's just another group, run by list owners for list owners, and that's how they do it. It's a useful group and I wouldn't want to argue with them about it, but I think if we had to do that here it wouldn't be worth having anymore. Thanks again. Best Keith Mike Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). Oh, I don't know. I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a lively off-list debate, (actually it was a fight/screaming match) -which I lost btw- that would not have benefitted the list at all. the post I submitted and had screened, was poorly (not at all) researched, and expressed a pov that was based in ignorance of the subject I was commenting upon. It was taken the wrong way by the moderator, but in light of the subject at hand, that was certainly understandable, and in interest of the health of the list, the decision to take the argument/debate off list was most certainly correct. It also saved me the embarrassment of arguing an idiotic point, something I am want to do upon occasion :) big thread snipped upon which I have nothing to add --chipper ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
I like the way this list works -- a few of my other sustainability lists it's very easy to get off-topic (try discussing the political ramifications or drivers behind a sustainbility issue...) and then the moderator steps in and tells you to take it elsewhere. Here it seems like there is no subject that is off topic, but whatever the subject, you better present it in a reasoned way and be able to support your point (just like the rules say, actually). Sort of like the real world -- you can't just claim that something happening is off topic and you won't deal with it, and dealing with stuff by kicking and screaming doesn't work (for too long) either Keep up the good work everyone Zeke On 4/19/06, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chip's offlist fight with listadmin ended well for all concerned, IMHO, I'm glad Chip agrees. Definitely offlist stuff, the list wasn't deprived of anything. Raking up old coals isn't always a good idea, and this would just have been a distraction or worse. I think there's a lot of offlisting going on all the time, from what I can make out a lot of members seem to do it. It's healthy, I don't think it deprives anyone of anything, maybe the opposite. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of onlist interaction. Chip wrote: I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a lively off-list debate... If all posts on that thread were screened, I disagree with your assessment. However, I agree with subsequent screening/deleting after the list members had a chance to read and dissent to the initial posts. To my knowledge Keith tries to give the list a chance to respond to every post and it's understood (IMO) that members who have nothing but antagonism to offer, are removed. This is usually done with all the transparency he can afford. Thankyou. That's true, or as true as I can make it. There are also various ways of trying to prevent the antagonism arising in the first place, but such things can only go so far before they do more harm than good. A bit of a balancing act. If it looks this way from the other end, as Mike says, then I'm well pleased: This forum proves that a loose framework is very effective at maintaining individual freedoms while allowing it's membership to participate in maintaining continuity. By the way, Mike: It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). Strangely, IMO, the big list owners group at Yahoo does that, everybody's screened, not just newcomers on auto-moderation for their first posts like most groups. It's not run by Yahoo, it's just another group, run by list owners for list owners, and that's how they do it. It's a useful group and I wouldn't want to argue with them about it, but I think if we had to do that here it wouldn't be worth having anymore. Thanks again. Best Keith Mike Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). Oh, I don't know. I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a lively off-list debate, (actually it was a fight/screaming match) -which I lost btw- that would not have benefitted the list at all. the post I submitted and had screened, was poorly (not at all) researched, and expressed a pov that was based in ignorance of the subject I was commenting upon. It was taken the wrong way by the moderator, but in light of the subject at hand, that was certainly understandable, and in interest of the health of the list, the decision to take the argument/debate off list was most certainly correct. It also saved me the embarrassment of arguing an idiotic point, something I am want to do upon occasion :) big thread snipped upon which I have nothing to add --chipper ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] A little clarification
Greetings, I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well. I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in past history and is happening today by the corporate world. I do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain changes had come about in a more humane manner, of course. Part of getting over hatred is seeing that even though you hated a situation, some personal good came from it. Hatred is bad for the person who hates, not the person who is hated. By distancing and looking for good, one can overcome hatred of even a whole race. To say that by finding good in a situation that you condoned the original sin is nonsense. That would be like saying a black person who looking at the situation in Africa and counting his blessings that his family is in America, condoned the slavery that brought his family to America. Taking a balance view and learning to not hate for the past by finding good in it should not be the antithesis to a sustainable world. To build a sustainable world, we need to fight current evil yes, but we also need to forgive and forget the past so we can live in peace, not hundreds of years of fighting. Bright Blessings, Kim ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
Hello Kim Greetings, I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well. I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal her way up a pedestal, in defiance of the laws of gravity and pedals. I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in past history and is happening today by the corporate world. Um, sorry, not so. In fact you were also criticised for the colonising the stars bit, and you ignored that too. But for a lot of forbearance you could have got the boot just for that, and much besides. You should read the list rules again. They're there for a reason. It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. They had to be put into a form that people could be referred to and told to read and comply with when they joined. If not no list any more long ago already. A major reason for it was to put a stop to this kind of vanishing act that denialists of all stripes like to pull with what they said yesterday. You're not a denialist? But you walk the walk. The rules are all about integrity. Please go and read them. http://snipurl.com/mx7r I do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain changes had come about in a more humane manner, of course. Part of getting over hatred is seeing that even though you hated a situation, some personal good came from it. Hatred is bad for the person who hates, not the person who is hated. Morally and spiritually, indeed so. Practically, well, what will you say, Kim? At least the victims were pure of heart when they got slaughtered so it was a Good Thing for them, they didn't get the chance to pollute their spirits with negative feelings like hatred afterwards? Only a pessimistic person who sees no hope for humanity and knows nothing about history could disagree, eh? Sure, you didn't say that, but it's not far from what you did say, which you're now trying to sweep under the corner of the carpet, as usual. That's right, I'm going to unsweep it a little, did you think I wouldn't? You think some strange things. What made you think I wouldn't check the snopes reference you posted even if you didn't? Denialists don't do metaphor either, they say I didn't say that! By distancing Hm. and looking for good, one can overcome hatred of even a whole race. Hating a whole race, my word. To say that by finding good in a situation that you condoned the original sin is nonsense. It might be. If you use the good that you look for to distract from the original sin it might not be such nonsense. If you set out in search of a good in order to use it for that purpose it'd be even less nonsense. And when you use the perceived good to disappear the original sin altogether it's not nonsense at all. Perceived good: [Kim] For that matter, I do believe that Native women have more rights now than they had when they were property of the men in their families. Isn't that pretty much what the US military says when they succeed in liberating a village only they had to kill most of the villagers and bomb all the buildings first, but hey, at least they're free, it's the only way to make omelettes, getting bombed is almost as good for you as getting colonised. That would be like saying a black person who looking at the situation in Africa and counting his blessings that his family is in America, condoned the slavery that brought his family to America. I think a lot of Africans would object to that view, with reason. Do you think that's what the blacks in New Orleans who were on TV after Hurricane Katrina were thinking and it made them feel all warm and cosy inside, who needs a bus ticket? You had a different view of them at the time, and it's part and parcel of the current consignment. Taking a balance view and learning to not hate for the past by finding good in it should not be the antithesis to a sustainable world. Indeed it's not, but that's not the same as using some perceived benefit that's far from clear to say the least to hey-presto an horrendous slaughter into a Good Thing for everybody including the victims, and just for a bonus the survivors' women are freer now too, your balanced view. When challenged your argument was that at least you can see some hope for humanity, unlike me, LOL! Now the only option you're leaving to seeing it all your way, in the sanitised new clothes you've dressed it up in, is to be doomed to hatred as well as an historically challenged pessimist. I wonder how much you know about hatred? Me, well I don't hate anyone. It's not just armchair stuff, I've had my share of reasons for hatred. I can see them now, clear as the day they happened, scene after scene after scene, like a movie.
Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
I just wanted to chime in here.Keith wrote: "It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up."It's alsotoo commonto see a reactionary restriction of _expression_, screening all posts before distribution (for example).This forum proves that a loose framework is very effective atmaintaining individual freedoms whileallowing it's membership to participate in maintaining continuity.Kim: I read some of your posts and couldn't help noticethe similaritiesbetween your views and the ideologydriving the White Man's Burden. Maybe it's time to rethink the ideals to which we, in the US, havebeen indoctrinated. Maybe it's a good time to question the perceivedcredibilityand legacy left behind by people like McCarthy and accept thefact that it's not acceptable to steer the culture, economy and government of another country simply because you feel you're "better".You wrote: "Our right to determine the direction of our life today is unparalleled in human history."So, Babylon, Ancient Greece, etc. don't count. The Magna Carta was "just a piece of paper" (if I can borrow an _expression_ from our president).There have been and are, better examples of democracy in human history than the republic we Americans pretend to push on others in the process of building an empire. Do some research on our Constitution and it's origins. It will lead youin a few directions - one of which is toward the Iroquoisnation. Ask an Iroquois about their "right to determine their life" - if you can find one.You talk about the reassignment of land for the greater good but conveniently under emphasize the eradication of those people in the process of fulfilling that illusion. Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello KimGreetings,I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well.I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal her way up a pedestal, in defiance of the laws of gravity and pedals.I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in past history and is happening today by the corporate world.Um, sorry, not so. In fact you were also criticised for the colonising the stars bit, and you ignored that too. But for a lot of forbearance you could have got the boot just for that, and much besides. You should read the list rules again. They're there for a reason. It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. They had to be put into a form that people could be referred to and told to read and comply with when they joined. If not no list any more long ago already.A major reason for it was to put a stop to this kind of vanishing act that denialists of all stripes like to pull with what they said yesterday. You're not a denialist? But you walk the walk. The rules are all about integrity. Please go and read them.http://snipurl.com/mx7rI do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain changes had come about in a more humane manner, of course. Part of getting over hatred is seeing that even though you hated a situation, some personal good came from it. Hatred is bad for the person who hates, not the person who is hated.Morally and spiritually, indeed so. Practically, well, what will you say, Kim? At least the victims were pure of heart when they got slaughtered so it was a Good Thing for them, they didn't get the chance to pollute their spirits with negative feelings like hatred afterwards? Only a pessimistic person who sees no hope for humanity and knows nothing about history could disagree, eh? Sure, you didn't say that, but it's not far from what you did say, which you're now trying to sweep under the corner of the carpet, as usual. That's right, I'm going to unsweep it a little, did you think I wouldn't? You think some strange things. What made you think I wouldn't check the snopes reference you posted even if you didn't? Denialists don't do metaphor either, they say "I didn't say that!"By distancingHm.and looking for good, one can overcome hatred of even a whole race.Hating a whole race, my word.To say that by finding good in a situation that you condoned the original sin is nonsense.It might be. If you use the good that you look for to distract from the "original sin" it might not be such nonsense. If you set out in search of a "good" in order to use it for that purpose it'd be even less nonsense. And when you use the perceived good to disappear the original sin altogether it's not nonsense at all.Perceived good:[Kim] For that matter, I do believe that Native women have more rightsnow than they had when they were property of the men in their families.Isn't that pretty much what the
Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
Rudtard Kipling is rolling is his grave but William Easterly probably approves of pretty much everything you've said. Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). This forum proves that a loose framework is very effective at maintaining individual freedoms while allowing it's membership to participate in maintaining continuity. Kim: I read some of your posts and couldn't help notice the similarities between your views and the ideology driving the White Man's Burden. Maybe it's time to rethink the ideals to which we, in the US, have been indoctrinated. Maybe it's a good time to question the perceived credibility and legacy left behind by people like McCarthy and accept the fact that it's not acceptable to steer the culture, economy and government of another country simply because you feel you're better. You wrote: Our right to determine the direction of our life today is unparalleled in human history. So, Babylon, Ancient Greece, etc. don't count. The Magna Carta was just a piece of paper (if I can borrow an expression from our president). There have been and are, better examples of democracy in human history than the republic we Americans pretend to push on others in the process of building an empire. Do some research on our Constitution and it's origins. It will lead you in a few directions - one of which is toward the Iroquois nation. Ask an Iroquois about their right to determine their life - if you can find one. You talk about the reassignment of land for the greater good but conveniently under emphasize the eradication of those people in the process of fulfilling that illusion. Mike */Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Hello Kim Greetings, I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well. I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal her way up a pedestal, in defiance of the laws of gravity and pedals. I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in past history and is happening today by the corporate world. Um, sorry, not so. In fact you were also criticised for the colonising the stars bit, and you ignored that too. But for a lot of forbearance you could have got the boot just for that, and much besides. You should read the list rules again. They're there for a reason. It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. They had to be put into a form that people could be referred to and told to read and comply with when they joined. If not no list any more long ago already. A major reason for it was to put a stop to this kind of vanishing act that denialists of all stripes like to pull with what they said yesterday. You're not a denialist? But you walk the walk. The rules are all about integrity. Please go and read them. http://snipurl.com/mx7r I do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain changes had come about in a more humane manner, of course. Part of getting over hatred is seeing that even though you hated a situation, some personal good came from it. Hatred is bad for the person who hates, not the person who is hated. Morally and spiritually, indeed so. Practically, well, what will you say, Kim? At least the victims were pure of heart when they got slaughtered so it was a Good Thing for them, they didn't get the chance to pollute their spirits with negative feelings like hatred afterwards? Only a pessimistic person who sees no hope for humanity and knows nothing about history could disagree, eh? Sure, you didn't say that, but it's not far from what you did say, which you're now trying to sweep under the corner of the carpet, as usual. That's right, I'm going to unsweep it a little, did you think I wouldn't? You think some strange things. What made you think I wouldn't check the snopes reference you posted even if you didn't? Denialists don't do metaphor either, they say I didn't say that! By distancing Hm. and looking for good, one can overcome hatred of even a whole race. Hating a whole race, my word. To say that by finding good in a situation that you condoned the original sin is nonsense. It might be. If you use the good that you look
Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). Oh, I don't know. I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a lively off-list debate, (actually it was a fight/screaming match) -which I lost btw- that would not have benefitted the list at all. the post I submitted and had screened, was poorly (not at all) researched, and expressed a pov that was based in ignorance of the subject I was commenting upon. It was taken the wrong way by the moderator, but in light of the subject at hand, that was certainly understandable, and in interest of the health of the list, the decision to take the argument/debate off list was most certainly correct. It also saved me the embarrassment of arguing an idiotic point, something I am want to do upon occasion :) big thread snipped upon which I have nothing to add --chipper ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
Chip wrote: "I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a lively off-list debate..."If all posts on that thread were screened, I disagree with your assessment. However, I agree with subsequent screening/deleting after the list members had a chance to read and dissent to the initial posts.To my knowledge Keith tries to give the list a chance to respond to every post and it's understood (IMO) that members who have nothing but antagonism to offer, are removed. This is usually done with all the transparencyhe can afford.MikeChip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: "It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up." It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of _expression_, screening all posts before distribution (for example).Oh, I don't know.I had a post 'screened' a few months back, which led to a livelyoff-list debate, (actually it was a fight/screaming match) -whichI lost btw- that would not have benefitted the list at all.the post I submitted and had screened, was poorly (not at all)researched, and expressed a pov that was based in ignorance ofthe subject I was commenting upon. It was taken the wrong wayby the moderator, but in light of the subject at hand, thatwas certainly understandable, and in interest of the healthof the list, the decision to take the argument/debate offlist was most certainly correct. It also saved me theembarrassment of arguing an idiotic point, something I amwant to do upon occasion :)big thread snipped upon which I have nothing to add--chipper___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A little clarification
I hope that too much restriction does not take place because I learn a lot from reading reactions to each other's statements. It helps me clarify my own thinking by watching people try to help others clarify and defend their positions. I want to understand why people feel they way they do. Most of my friends think like I do, and I have a lot to learn about the root causes of different viewponts. Marilyn Michael Redler wrote: I just wanted to chime in here. Keith wrote: It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. It's also too common to see a reactionary restriction of expression, screening all posts before distribution (for example). This forum proves that a loose framework is very effective at maintaining individual freedoms while allowing it's membership to participate in maintaining continuity. Kim: I read some of your posts and couldn't help notice the similarities between your views and the ideology driving the White Man's Burden. Maybe it's time to rethink the ideals to which we, in the US, have been indoctrinated. Maybe it's a good time to question the perceived credibility and legacy left behind by people like McCarthy and accept the fact that it's not acceptable to steer the culture, economy and government of another country simply because you feel you're better. You wrote: Our right to determine the direction of our life today is unparalleled in human history. So, Babylon, Ancient Greece, etc. don't count. The Magna Carta was just a piece of paper (if I can borrow an expression from our president). There have been and are, better examples of democracy in human history than the republic we Americans pretend to push on others in the process of building an empire. Do some research on our Constitution and it's origins. It will lead you in a few directions - one of which is toward the Iroquois nation. Ask an Iroquois about their right to determine their life - if you can find one. You talk about the reassignment of land for the greater good but conveniently under emphasize the eradication of those people in the process of fulfilling that illusion. Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Kim Greetings, I do believe that many people on this list don't read real well. I think you're relying on it. No doubt a new subject-title and dumping all the evidence helps. The ones who disagree with you read quite well though. The un-keyhole view is of Kim trying to backpedal her way up a pedestal, in defiance of the laws of gravity and pedals. I did say I was in favor of colonizing the stars, not the colonizing that happened in past history and is happening today by the corporate world. Um, sorry, not so. In fact you were also criticised for the colonising the stars bit, and you ignored that too. But for a lot of forbearance you could have got the boot just for that, and much besides. You should read the list rules again. They're there for a reason. It reached a stage here where the list would not have survived unless we'd formulated the rules, which were already there, we didn't just make them up. They had to be put into a form that people could be referred to and told to read and comply with when they joined. If not no list any more long ago already. A major reason for it was to put a stop to this kind of vanishing act that denialists of all stripes like to pull with what they said yesterday. You're not a denialist? But you walk the walk. The rules are all about integrity. Please go and read them. http://snipurl.com/mx7r I do find good in many bad situations. Do I wish that certain changes had come about in a more humane manner, of course. Part of getting over hatred is seeing that even though you hated a situation, some personal good came from it. Hatred is bad for the person who hates, not the person who is hated. Morally and spiritually, indeed so. Practically, well, what will you say, Kim? At least the victims were pure of heart when they got slaughtered so it was a Good Thing for them, they didn't get the chance to pollute their spirits with negative feelings like hatred afterwards? Only a pessimistic person who sees no hope for humanity and knows nothing about history could disagree, eh? Sure, you didn't say that, but it's not far from what you did say, which you're now trying to sweep under the corner of the carpet, as usual. That's right, I'm going to unsweep it a little, did you think I wouldn't? You think some strange things. What made you think I wouldn't check the snopes reference you posted even if you didn't? Denialists don't do metaphor either, they say I didn't say that! By distancing Hm. and looking for good, one can overcome hatred of even a whole race. Hating a whole race, my word. To say that by finding good in a
[biofuel] A little clarification Was: Just one man's observation!
Yes, you are correct about my position in the whole matter. However Hakan, this is exactly my point. This is EXACTLY why I think the UN is using our el-presidante' for it's own purposes. Look at it this way. You are correct in your conclusion that I thought that US had the right to set a precedence of going to war with an other nation if they wanted. I've always believed that ... I do I do ... and I still do. It is called the concept of the sovereign nation. Where, unless bombs and missiles don't come flying into MY backyard ... I really DON'T have any right to say anything (factually / who's right or wrong) about two other country's fighting. For one thing, it's not my business. Secondly, I've got NO un-SLANTED information as to exactly what issue they are fighting over. Therefore, I stay out. Bomb falls on MY soil, however, is different. Then kicks in the right to self-defense. But until then, I can say all the OPINION of what they should do ... to either side of the conflict ... but I cannot ... and should not justify getting involved. I should not get involved in their conflict and (as relates to your question) neither should any one else get involved with ours.Ok, Hakan, freeze that thought and keep that thought in the back of your head. Now we have a situation like our good 'ol Mr. Bush. Sigh ... and what a situation it is. Shouting to go to war .. especially with OIL written all over it. Shouting that UNLESS SOMEONE STEPS UP TO THE PLATE ... AND DISRESPECT-SOVEREIGN-NATION-LY ARM-TWIST MY NATION I'M GONNA DISRESPECT-SOVEREIGN-NATION-LY INVADE IRAQ. Cause remember now, IRAQ is a Sovereign Nation TOO ya know. No Iraqi serial numbered bombs have EVER been officially dropped on any US shopping malls yet ... so why should WE get involved either?? Notice ... the situation our Mr. Bush's got 'ol Curtis into. That's my point. (Read slowly) CURTIS ... is now forced. To GIVE UP MY IDEOLOGY OF SOVEREIGNTY when it comes to OUR Country (UN telling us what we must do) .. OR GIVE UP MY IDEOLOGY OF SOVEREIGNTY by NOT doing so ... and in doing so SUPPORT Mr Bush's taking away (disrespecting) ANOTHER Country's sovereignty (US bombing ... WITHOUT a single Iraqi F-15 phantom fighter firing a single missile at Disneyland FIRST). BUSH ... BASICALLY HAS FORCED THE EQUATING OF NOT SUPPORTING THE HOOKING UP OF THE US SUBSERVIENTLY UNDER THE (Keith can laugh) GLOBAL GOVERNMENT .. WITH SUPPORTING A STUPID WAR KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN. I ... on the the other hand ... disagree with both. BOTH, taking away of Sovereignty's. Both the US taking away the Sovereignty if Iraq (Bombing without direct cause) . AND AND ... AND The UN taking away of OUR Sovereignty (By UN overruling ANY country .. much less us). That's why I strongly believe that somehow ... someway ... the guys at the UN are somehow ... someway colluding with (or simply using) BUSH. To force me ... good 'ol Curtis .. to give up on the idea (ideal?) of Sovereignty. To believe that the only way out of this situation ... is to allow the hooking up of the US under the GLOBAL GOVERN ... er ... I mean United Nations (LOL!). With the Security Council ... like I said ... being a Global Senate. So ... that's why ... I DO NOT believe that the UN has any right overruling our Congressional decisions but on the other hand ... I also disagree with the War itself. And again just this littly guy's observation. Wacky .. yes. But in my mind (if only in my mind!!) ALL THE FACTS SO FAR SEEM TO POINT TO IT. u does that make any more sense??? Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Curtis, You did not like war, but thought that US had the right to set a precedence of going to war with an other nation if they wanted. This without regarding the opinions of 95% of the world population. If you want to set precedences, do it at home and with democratic support if you want. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] A little clarification Was: Just one man's observation!
I cann't help I have to react. To my 'human' feeling, somne strange thinking below by Curtis. 1) statement: the UN is using our el-presidante' for it's own purposes.?? As I understand it so far the UN NEVER said the US of A can NOT attack Iraq. The 'privalege' of starting a war is 'every' countries right... Does this not seems strange??? Sounds like, every one has the right to kill his neightbour... I'll come back to this later. First the UN and the US. Why Bush is 'speaking' with the UK, the UN and others, is because he wants/needs their support. Without, he knows he is into trouble. If I want to take an appel in the store, I first have to know if I can take one, or earned, or deserved, otherwise I'm stealing, and the police will catch me. If Iraq (read Saddam) has WOM, he can be attacked, otherwise, it will be unjust! The UN is not forcing the US, Bush is by 'all means' trying to get the support of the UN (even by forcing/bullying) 2) statement: GIVE UP MY IDEOLOGY OF SOVEREIGNTY: Sovereign nation means that such a nation is regarded as 'A nation' by the rest of the world, and within reasonable limits, can make it's own rulling. But it does NOT mean one can do what one wants. Otherwise Iraq IS a souvereign nation. So if this means they can do whatever Saddam finds right, were is the basis of discussion anyhow No, a sovereign nation is regarded as a nation by the rest of the world (democratic or not, nothing to do with it), and can within reason do inside the country what it want, and to less degree, outside of the country. 3) statement: Where, unless bombs and missiles don't come flying into MY backyard ... I really DON'T have any right to say anything (factually / who's right or wrong) about two other country's fighting. So if you, or the police, see a crime on the street, lets say a non-american, killing a non-american in New-York... this is non of your business??? It is not in your backyard, so you have no right to interact You see what I'm getting at, we have something called a) moral standards, b) human rights, c) laws. In a community, they all are used to 'live together' Well, the world is also a community so we should consider a) moral; b) human rights; and c) some 'universal world laws' And for this latter, the US, together with other countries (indeed, the US is part of it) founded the UN. Especially when I do not know why its going on, I should try to find out. This is called solidarity. The idea is that one helps the other (at time weaker), in the hope to get his support when it is needed. To protect one another, not to attack/kill. 4) statement:I DO NOT believe that the UN has any right . The UN was set up, with the US as a member, to live together in a better, more peacefull way in the world. You can compare this with your own governement, with deparment of justice and police. They all exist to make sure one has some safety in live, and rules of living together are respected as agreed. In this manner, the UN will NOT force someone not to do anything, but can interact when they feel the action is unjust. Do you want the police to come to your home when you are being robbed?? I suppose so. In the same way, the UN is only asking for justification from the US, as to make sure the moraly and humanly right action is taken against Iraq if needed. If the police would come to your house, and arrest you despite you are innocent, you also would like some protection of your rights. No different Filip original message: == Yes, you are correct about my position in the whole matter. However Hakan, this is exactly my point. This is EXACTLY why I think the UN is using our el-presidante' for it's own purposes. Look at it this way. You are correct in your conclusion that I thought that US had the right to set a precedence of going to war with an other nation if they wanted. I've always believed that ... I do I do ... and I still do. It is called the concept of the sovereign nation. Where, unless bombs and missiles don't come flying into MY backyard ... I really DON'T have any right to say anything (factually / who's right or wrong) about two other country's fighting. For one thing, it's not my business. Secondly, I've got NO un-SLANTED information as to exactly what issue they are fighting over. Therefore, I stay out. Bomb falls on MY soil, however, is different. Then kicks in the right to self-defense. But until then, I can say all the OPINION of what they should do ... to either side of the conflict ... but I cannot ... and should not justify getting involved. I should not get involved in their conflict and (as relates to your question) neither should any one else get involved with ours.Ok, Hakan, freeze that thought and keep that thought in the back of your head. Now we have a situation like our good 'ol Mr. Bush. Sigh ... and what a situation it is.
