And for an opposing point of view....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20061218/tc_zd/196709

I think this guy has issues......

Heath
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com

--- In [email protected], Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Funny you said that, Mark.
> 
> When I saw the cover i thought them was who they really meant.
> 
> It's always Us v Them, and over the last couple years I've begun 
to  
> realize that the real dangerous entity on the planet is You; we 
are  
> the new Other.
> 
> If you take a real cynical view of the goings on in real politik: 
GM  
> Foods, 'Free Markets', War for Profit, Environmentalism, and a 
host  
> of other 1st tier global issues, and it is the people of the world  
> that are the real impediment to gaining or keeping a monopoly on 
power.
> 
> So I agree with you, Mark. Way to boil it down.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ron
> 
> On Dec 18, 2006, at 10:38 AM, mark raheja wrote:
> 
> > from deep inside the echo chamber, it's hard to disagree with 'us'
> > being Time's People of the Year.
> >
> > but to state the obvious: the main reason this is the case is 
because
> > we scare the living crap out of *them*, specifically. we scare the
> > living crap out of them because their business model is at risk. 
no
> > cultural/informational/socio-economic phenomenon has ever been as
> > hyper-relevant to the people who make this annual decision as this
> > one. in fact...if anyone watched the CNN recap of Time's choice 
for
> > 2006, you'll remember a part where about 40 people are sitting in 
a
> > room and one of them points out the irony in celebrating the very
> > people that are threatening their jobs. [paraphrasing...the 
internet
> > has stolen my memory...]
> >
> > Kim Jong Il may be one threatening dude [unless you've watched 
Team
> > America: World Police], but he ain't as directly threatening to 
the
> > owners & staff of Time Magazine as you are.
> >
> > -M
> >
> > mark raheja
> > www.thememeingoflife.com
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 416.451.3640
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to