Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> > Since this thread is fraying all over the place, here's a
> > summary post of how I see the history of Cuba.
> > [...]
> > 6. That things aren't even worse in Central America and the
> > Caribbean are thanks to an elder of Zion, J. Reuben Clark, Jr.,
> > whose "Clark Memorandum" diverted early 20th century attempts
> > by the U.S. to become true imperialists like their British and
> > French predecessors.
> Not sure how this (or any of the following points) has anything to do
> with the history of Cuba. Also, don't you think your above statement is
> an oversimplification?
I did say I was summarizing, so your question is irrelevantly tautological. What
the point has to do with the history of Cuba is that Cuba is part of "Central
America and the Caribbean" and the history of that region might have suffered
even more heavy-handedly than it did if it weren't for a member of the Church's
intervention in turning the USA away from a true imperialist course.
> > 7. I have no idea what Victor is talking about. Where does
> > one get a card that says one is a liberal democrat?
> One can get that from me, for a small charge.
> > Also, it's "straitlaced," not "straightlaced." The words have
> > different meanings.
> Not according to www.m-w.com. They are listed as variant spellings of
> the same word. In any case, if you're going to be critical of spelling,
> you missed "then", "let's", "forgiveness", "afterlife", "card-carrying",
> "temple-going", and of course "Latter-day Saint". But such things seem
> to me a case of attacking the messenger instead of the message,
> something I know you find distasteful.
Well, I don't care about what some website lists as "variants". "Strait" means
narrow, constricted; "straight" means without bends. Just go north on the water
into the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Georgia Strait -- they're anything but
straight. My complaint was that I couldn't understand Victor. Using tools of
communications properly is an aid in understanding; it wasn't a personal attack
> > If he means all Democrats are liberal, then I suggest he discuss
> > his problem with President Faust, a registered Democrat.
> Interesting. I did not get that meaning at all from what he wrote, nor
> did it even occur to me. Perhaps Canadians just can't understand
> American political talk...
Are you saying he's not a Democrat? N. Eldon Tanner and Hugh B. Brown were
> > 8. An ideological approach is one where one demonizes an
> > opponent by using a label in such a way as to divert one's
> > attention from what actually happened in history.
> Ah. In other words, Steven's approach was ideological *because* he was
> "demonizing an opponent" with ideological tags, while your approach was
> clearly not ideological, since you weren't using your ideological tags
> to demonize Castro. But then, you were arguably demonizing the US. Of
> course, I expect you'd claim the US wasn't your "opponent", so therefore
> it still doesn't fit your definition of "an ideological approach". I'm
> just not sure I accept your definition, I guess.
Take a valium. You're reading far more into this than is intended. See my new
thread, "History of Cuba".
> > One of its particularly obnoxious tools, and the reason I left
> > Zion-L once, is when they try to claim ecclesiastical/doctrinal
> > authority for their perverted and hobby horse views.
> Again, I agree completely with this sentiment. As an example, those who
> try to leverage Elder Nelson's recent conference talk to bolster their
> sociopolitical views against US actions toward Iraq are obnoxiously
> wresting his "ecclesiastical/doctrinal authority" to support their
> "perverted and hobby horse views". Wouldn't you agree?
> > 9. Pointing out your own history to you doesn't make one
> > "anti-USAmerican".
> True enough. Rather, continually and disproportionately attacking US
> actions, past and present, and attaching such ideological tags as
> "imperialistic" and "militaristic" to the US, makes one anti-American,
> at least in my view.
I didn't make the US the policeman of the world.
> > If you disagree with my reading of history, then prove me
> > wrong, don't attack the messenger. That's the classic mistake
> > of an ad hominem argument.
> So when the anti-Mormons say, "Those twisted Mormons get NAKED in their
> temples! And they're POLYTHEISTS, like Hindus! And they teach that Jesus
> and Satan are BROTHERS!", your response is to say, "Yup, you're
> absolutely right, no arguments here"? Or do you concede that the
> messenger's presentation may indeed severely color the message?
This is similar to Steven's technique: use religious terminology to demonize
one's opponent. You can share Steven's sock -- I will not have my testimony
challenged, directly or indirectly, on the basis of nationality or political
belief. Like it or lump it, but I'm not going to be tactful anymore in responding
to this kind of "spiritual harrassment."
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
“We do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the
worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly
debated…To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was
a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly
character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was
totally unfitted for action.” – Pericles about his fellow-Athenians, as quoted by
Thucydides in “The Peloponessian Wars”
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!