Jihad needs scientists

In article <eu33c7$8qk_002@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <j5UMh.26$25.102@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu0a9t$8qk_001@s798.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <2a614$460283f9$4fe7109$10420@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1ae0f$45f817db$4fe71d4$28690@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

The answers we've seen over the months seem to me in
retrospect to have been rather linear with a lot of
semi-concealed "they're just like us" worldview. With
that premise being wrong, all that follows is as well.

hmmm...I don't think that is the key but it is an important
ingredient.

It is the starting point for understanding. IMO if
someone doesn't "get" this, they don't have any chance
at all.

Sure. I'm working on the part that comes before the desire
to understand appears. This seems to be the affliction
of a great number of people...or I've just begun noticing :-(.

Dammit, we don't even appreciate the difference between
the Russian mind (semi-oriental) and ours. The US and the
CIA have, for many decades, been accused of all sorts of
underhanded stuff. Still, no one has tied together
anything like the recent anti-leader dieoffs we can
clearly see happening. Factually we consider the Russians
"just like us" and clearly they're not.

I've done some reading to try to figure out their mindset because
part of the Middle East mess invoved that mindset. I'm currently
reading a book about a kibbutz; I was floored because I did not
know that USSR was used as a model and admired very much in
the beginnings of the social experiment. I had not figured out
the ramifications of USSR "supporting" Israel in the beginning.

Until Israel became part of the cold war gambits.

I've done some reading about that. The time I'm reading about is
in the 1950s. And it doesn't help that the author is both male
and seems to be enthralled with the socialist concept, and a
city slicker. For instance, he seems to think that their work
day from 6ish to 17:30 was a long day for farm work. He should
have visited some US farms.

What doesn't make sense is that these people admired the Russian
philosophy. If some of the group came from Poland, or talked
to people from Poland and/or Russia, I don't see how they
could admire Stalin.

You've a "time frame failure" here.

I tried not to commit that error.

These people came from Poland
during the 20 and 30s.

Right.

Way before 1945 and the Russian occupation of
Poland. It was very common for young people from all places that
didn't get a direct taste of Soviet rule to admire Stalin at that
time. Especially young people from the inteligentsia.

The author spent 9 months on this kibbutz in the early 1950s.
One of their holidays was still dedicated to Stalin and Lenin.
The visiting work groups had to have some people from Poland
who had first hand experience with Stalin's heavy hand.

I don't know if the visiting group had some people from after the war
Poland (it wasn't that easy to leave then) but wittness the Western
intelligentsia admiring Mao during the 60s and Castro till today.

I suppose habit is difficult to change.

Yes.

If a society bases its
tenets on humans rather than invisible gods, acknowledging
that the humans are nasty and wrong would destroy the coherence
of the group.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence

conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present. It was all dismissed as "ravings of
reactionaries". Then, when after Stalin's death Kchruschev disclosed
what was going on over there, there was a wave of suicides among
Western intelligentsia.

snip

I consider it a function of basic survival. It you don't
cheat, you don't get basic things such as food, plumbing,
and clothes.

Exactly.

What I can't figure out is how do one keep one's kids from
saying stuff when they're young. Or would politics and
criticism not even be mentioned in the home?

When your life my depend on it, of course they won't be mentioned.

I went to the library yesterday to try to find the two Gogol
books. I did rescue a Gogol book, but it's short stories.
The only ones I could find was only available as fucking e-books.
I now know why they've been dumping all the paper books. Two
weeks' ago I rescued astronomy and ornithology books. The
week before that was textiles and crafts and some ecology
and a lot of practical wiring and fixing books.
This country is insane.

Lets say "disturbed".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

In article <4feNh.41$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eu33c7$8qk_002@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <j5UMh.26$25.102@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu0a9t$8qk_001@s798.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <2a614$460283f9$4fe7109$10420@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1ae0f$45f817db$4fe71d4$28690@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

The answers we've seen over the months seem to me in
retrospect to have been rather linear with a lot of
semi-concealed "they're just like us" worldview. With
that premise being wrong, all that follows is as well.

hmmm...I don't think that is the key but it is an important
ingredient.

It is the starting point for understanding. IMO if
someone doesn't "get" this, they don't have any chance
at all.

Sure. I'm working on the part that comes before the desire
to understand appears. This seems to be the affliction
of a great number of people...or I've just begun noticing :-(.

Dammit, we don't even appreciate the difference between
the Russian mind (semi-oriental) and ours. The US and the
CIA have, for many decades, been accused of all sorts of
underhanded stuff. Still, no one has tied together
anything like the recent anti-leader dieoffs we can
clearly see happening. Factually we consider the Russians
"just like us" and clearly they're not.

I've done some reading to try to figure out their mindset because
part of the Middle East mess invoved that mindset. I'm currently
reading a book about a kibbutz; I was floored because I did not
know that USSR was used as a model and admired very much in
the beginnings of the social experiment. I had not figured out
the ramifications of USSR "supporting" Israel in the beginning.

Until Israel became part of the cold war gambits.

I've done some reading about that. The time I'm reading about is
in the 1950s. And it doesn't help that the author is both male
and seems to be enthralled with the socialist concept, and a
city slicker. For instance, he seems to think that their work
day from 6ish to 17:30 was a long day for farm work. He should
have visited some US farms.

What doesn't make sense is that these people admired the Russian
philosophy. If some of the group came from Poland, or talked
to people from Poland and/or Russia, I don't see how they
could admire Stalin.

You've a "time frame failure" here.

I tried not to commit that error.

These people came from Poland
during the 20 and 30s.

Right.

Way before 1945 and the Russian occupation of
Poland. It was very common for young people from all places that
didn't get a direct taste of Soviet rule to admire Stalin at that
time. Especially young people from the inteligentsia.

The author spent 9 months on this kibbutz in the early 1950s.
One of their holidays was still dedicated to Stalin and Lenin.
The visiting work groups had to have some people from Poland
who had first hand experience with Stalin's heavy hand.

I don't know if the visiting group had some people from after the war
Poland (it wasn't that easy to leave then) but wittness the Western
intelligentsia admiring Mao during the 60s and Castro till today.

Yea. Or those following certain of our politicians.

I suppose habit is difficult to change.

Yes.

There are a lot of "holes" in this book I'm reading. I keep
asking who made the money . So far I think he's mentioned
war once. That doesn't match with anything else I've read.
He finally stated that he was considered a US spy so a lot of
his raw data could be based on placation. He keeps promising
to discuss the "women's problem". I can't wait .

I'm also considering that he's made the whole thing up but I
don't know how to check. He opens his paper by saying the
names are fictitious and he will identify the kibbutz by
personal request only. I came across another book of a similar
mien (but a completely different subject) that was also written
by people who had this kind of, I'll call it, socialistic thinking.
I had no idea that thinking was going on in the 50s and 60s.

If a society bases its
tenets on humans rather than invisible gods, acknowledging
that the humans are nasty and wrong would destroy the coherence
of the group.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

It was all dismissed as "ravings of
reactionaries". Then, when after Stalin's death Kchruschev disclosed
what was going on over there, there was a wave of suicides among
Western intelligentsia.

I didn't know that.

snip

I consider it a function of basic survival. It you don't
cheat, you don't get basic things such as food, plumbing,
and clothes.

Exactly.

What I can't figure out is how do one keep one's kids from
saying stuff when they're young. Or would politics and
criticism not even be mentioned in the home?

When your life my depend on it, of course they won't be mentioned.

Does this new generation grow up without any critical thinking
instruction? Or do they have to learn how to do that by
accident?

I went to the library yesterday to try to find the two Gogol
books. I did rescue a Gogol book, but it's short stories.
The only ones I could find was only available as fucking e-books.
I now know why they've been dumping all the paper books. Two
weeks' ago I rescued astronomy and ornithology books. The
week before that was textiles and crafts and some ecology
and a lot of practical wiring and fixing books.
This country is insane.

Lets say "disturbed".

I don't know. It's more than that here. A law was passed that
is a perfect example of Nazism and everybody is clapping! For
the first time, I am understanding how Hitler was able to get
his power.

/BAH

 

In article <eu5p20$8qk_001@s797.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <4feNh.41$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu33c7$8qk_002@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <j5UMh.26$25.102@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu0a9t$8qk_001@s798.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <2a614$460283f9$4fe7109$10420@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1ae0f$45f817db$4fe71d4$28690@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

The answers we've seen over the months seem to me in
retrospect to have been rather linear with a lot of
semi-concealed "they're just like us" worldview. With
that premise being wrong, all that follows is as well.

hmmm...I don't think that is the key but it is an important
ingredient.

It is the starting point for understanding. IMO if
someone doesn't "get" this, they don't have any chance
at all.

Sure. I'm working on the part that comes before the desire
to understand appears. This seems to be the affliction
of a great number of people...or I've just begun noticing :-(.

Dammit, we don't even appreciate the difference between
the Russian mind (semi-oriental) and ours. The US and the
CIA have, for many decades, been accused of all sorts of
underhanded stuff. Still, no one has tied together
anything like the recent anti-leader dieoffs we can
clearly see happening. Factually we consider the Russians
"just like us" and clearly they're not.

I've done some reading to try to figure out their mindset because
part of the Middle East mess invoved that mindset. I'm currently
reading a book about a kibbutz; I was floored because I did not
know that USSR was used as a model and admired very much in
the beginnings of the social experiment. I had not figured out
the ramifications of USSR "supporting" Israel in the beginning.

Until Israel became part of the cold war gambits.

I've done some reading about that. The time I'm reading about is
in the 1950s. And it doesn't help that the author is both male
and seems to be enthralled with the socialist concept, and a
city slicker. For instance, he seems to think that their work
day from 6ish to 17:30 was a long day for farm work. He should
have visited some US farms.

What doesn't make sense is that these people admired the Russian
philosophy. If some of the group came from Poland, or talked
to people from Poland and/or Russia, I don't see how they
could admire Stalin.

You've a "time frame failure" here.

I tried not to commit that error.

These people came from Poland
during the 20 and 30s.

Right.

Way before 1945 and the Russian occupation of
Poland. It was very common for young people from all places that
didn't get a direct taste of Soviet rule to admire Stalin at that
time. Especially young people from the inteligentsia.

The author spent 9 months on this kibbutz in the early 1950s.
One of their holidays was still dedicated to Stalin and Lenin.
The visiting work groups had to have some people from Poland
who had first hand experience with Stalin's heavy hand.

I don't know if the visiting group had some people from after the war
Poland (it wasn't that easy to leave then) but wittness the Western
intelligentsia admiring Mao during the 60s and Castro till today.

Yea. Or those following certain of our politicians.

Aha.

I suppose habit is difficult to change.

Yes.

There are a lot of "holes" in this book I'm reading. I keep
asking who made the money . So far I think he's mentioned
war once. That doesn't match with anything else I've read.
He finally stated that he was considered a US spy so a lot of
his raw data could be based on placation. He keeps promising
to discuss the "women's problem". I can't wait .

I'm also considering that he's made the whole thing up but I
don't know how to check. He opens his paper by saying the
names are fictitious and he will identify the kibbutz by
personal request only. I came across another book of a similar
mien (but a completely different subject) that was also written
by people who had this kind of, I'll call it, socialistic thinking.
I had no idea that thinking was going on in the 50s and 60s.

Heck, there is still some of it going on even nowadays.

If a society bases its
tenets on humans rather than invisible gods, acknowledging
that the humans are nasty and wrong would destroy the coherence
of the group.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

Yes, very much so.

It was all dismissed as "ravings of
reactionaries". Then, when after Stalin's death Kchruschev disclosed
what was going on over there, there was a wave of suicides among
Western intelligentsia.

I didn't know that.

snip

I consider it a function of basic survival. It you don't
cheat, you don't get basic things such as food, plumbing,
and clothes.

Exactly.

What I can't figure out is how do one keep one's kids from
saying stuff when they're young. Or would politics and
criticism not even be mentioned in the home?

When your life my depend on it, of course they won't be mentioned.

Does this new generation grow up without any critical thinking
instruction? Or do they have to learn how to do that by
accident?

Actually, they learn it very well because, whether things are or
aren't mentioned, they can't fail to notice the discrepancies between
what they're being told and the reality surrounding them.

I went to the library yesterday to try to find the two Gogol
books. I did rescue a Gogol book, but it's short stories.
The only ones I could find was only available as fucking e-books.
I now know why they've been dumping all the paper books. Two
weeks' ago I rescued astronomy and ornithology books. The
week before that was textiles and crafts and some ecology
and a lot of practical wiring and fixing books.
This country is insane.

Lets say "disturbed".

I don't know. It's more than that here. A law was passed that
is a perfect example of Nazism and everybody is clapping!

I'm not sure what law you refer to, more detail is needed.

For the first time, I am understanding how Hitler was able to get
his power.

Note that one of the biggest concerns of the framers of the US

Constitution was how easily a democracy may generate into a tyranny.
They recognized it.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

In article <SJzNh.2$25.117@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eu5p20$8qk_001@s797.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <4feNh.41$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu33c7$8qk_002@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <j5UMh.26$25.102@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu0a9t$8qk_001@s798.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <2a614$460283f9$4fe7109$10420@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1ae0f$45f817db$4fe71d4$28690@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

The answers we've seen over the months seem to me in
retrospect to have been rather linear with a lot of
semi-concealed "they're just like us" worldview. With
that premise being wrong, all that follows is as well.

hmmm...I don't think that is the key but it is an important
ingredient.

It is the starting point for understanding. IMO if
someone doesn't "get" this, they don't have any chance
at all.

Sure. I'm working on the part that comes before the desire
to understand appears. This seems to be the affliction
of a great number of people...or I've just begun noticing :-(.

Dammit, we don't even appreciate the difference between
the Russian mind (semi-oriental) and ours. The US and the
CIA have, for many decades, been accused of all sorts of
underhanded stuff. Still, no one has tied together
anything like the recent anti-leader dieoffs we can
clearly see happening. Factually we consider the Russians
"just like us" and clearly they're not.

I've done some reading to try to figure out their mindset because
part of the Middle East mess invoved that mindset. I'm currently
reading a book about a kibbutz; I was floored because I did not
know that USSR was used as a model and admired very much in
the beginnings of the social experiment. I had not figured out
the ramifications of USSR "supporting" Israel in the beginning.

Until Israel became part of the cold war gambits.

I've done some reading about that. The time I'm reading about is
in the 1950s. And it doesn't help that the author is both male
and seems to be enthralled with the socialist concept, and a
city slicker. For instance, he seems to think that their work
day from 6ish to 17:30 was a long day for farm work. He should
have visited some US farms.

What doesn't make sense is that these people admired the Russian
philosophy. If some of the group came from Poland, or talked
to people from Poland and/or Russia, I don't see how they
could admire Stalin.

You've a "time frame failure" here.

I tried not to commit that error.

These people came from Poland
during the 20 and 30s.

Right.

Way before 1945 and the Russian occupation of
Poland. It was very common for young people from all places that
didn't get a direct taste of Soviet rule to admire Stalin at that
time. Especially young people from the inteligentsia.

The author spent 9 months on this kibbutz in the early 1950s.
One of their holidays was still dedicated to Stalin and Lenin.
The visiting work groups had to have some people from Poland
who had first hand experience with Stalin's heavy hand.

I don't know if the visiting group had some people from after the war
Poland (it wasn't that easy to leave then) but wittness the Western
intelligentsia admiring Mao during the 60s and Castro till today.

Yea. Or those following certain of our politicians.

Aha.

<grin> Aha! back at you.

I suppose habit is difficult to change.

Yes.

There are a lot of "holes" in this book I'm reading. I keep
asking who made the money . So far I think he's mentioned
war once. That doesn't match with anything else I've read.
He finally stated that he was considered a US spy so a lot of
his raw data could be based on placation. He keeps promising
to discuss the "women's problem". I can't wait .

I'm also considering that he's made the whole thing up but I
don't know how to check. He opens his paper by saying the
names are fictitious and he will identify the kibbutz by
personal request only. I came across another book of a similar
mien (but a completely different subject) that was also written
by people who had this kind of, I'll call it, socialistic thinking.
I had no idea that thinking was going on in the 50s and 60s.

Heck, there is still some of it going on even nowadays.

I wrote that badly. I didn't know while I was living during
the 50s and 60s that that kind of thinking was going on.

If a society bases its
tenets on humans rather than invisible gods, acknowledging
that the humans are nasty and wrong would destroy the coherence
of the group.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

Yes, very much so.

I still haven't figured her out.

It was all dismissed as "ravings of
reactionaries". Then, when after Stalin's death Kchruschev disclosed
what was going on over there, there was a wave of suicides among
Western intelligentsia.

I didn't know that.

snip

I consider it a function of basic survival. It you don't
cheat, you don't get basic things such as food, plumbing,
and clothes.

Exactly.

What I can't figure out is how do one keep one's kids from
saying stuff when they're young. Or would politics and
criticism not even be mentioned in the home?

When your life my depend on it, of course they won't be mentioned.

Does this new generation grow up without any critical thinking
instruction? Or do they have to learn how to do that by
accident?

Actually, they learn it very well because, whether things are or
aren't mentioned, they can't fail to notice the discrepancies between
what they're being told and the reality surrounding them.

But how do they not ask questions when they are very young? I can
remember when I was just a few years old asking my mother why that
woman was so fat. Back then, preagnant was a swear word.

I went to the library yesterday to try to find the two Gogol
books. I did rescue a Gogol book, but it's short stories.
The only ones I could find was only available as fucking e-books.
I now know why they've been dumping all the paper books. Two
weeks' ago I rescued astronomy and ornithology books. The
week before that was textiles and crafts and some ecology
and a lot of practical wiring and fixing books.
This country is insane.

Lets say "disturbed".

I don't know. It's more than that here. A law was passed that
is a perfect example of Nazism and everybody is clapping!

I'm not sure what law you refer to, more detail is needed.

Ah, sorry. Every body in the state has to prove it has
medical insurance. If a person doesn't prove it, this year's
income tax forms warned that they will be penalized on next year's
income tax forms. Note that there are no procedures to prove it
nor get insurance. The people who don't have insurance will
end up paying at least three times; these people don't have insurance
because they can't afford it. Now they're going to be forced
into paupers. 19th century city living in England again.

For the first time, I am understanding how Hitler was able to get
his power.

Note that one of the biggest concerns of the framers of the US
Constitution was how easily a democracy may generate into a tyranny.
They recognized it.

Yea. There exist at least on politician running for President
who is intent on eliding the document.

/BAH

 

In article <eu8ck8$8qk_001@s845.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <SJzNh.2$25.117@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu5p20$8qk_001@s797.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <4feNh.41$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu33c7$8qk_002@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <j5UMh.26$25.102@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu0a9t$8qk_001@s798.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <2a614$460283f9$4fe7109$10420@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1ae0f$45f817db$4fe71d4$28690@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

The answers we've seen over the months seem to me in
retrospect to have been rather linear with a lot of
semi-concealed "they're just like us" worldview. With
that premise being wrong, all that follows is as well.

hmmm...I don't think that is the key but it is an important
ingredient.

It is the starting point for understanding. IMO if
someone doesn't "get" this, they don't have any chance
at all.

Sure. I'm working on the part that comes before the desire
to understand appears. This seems to be the affliction
of a great number of people...or I've just begun noticing :-(.

Dammit, we don't even appreciate the difference between
the Russian mind (semi-oriental) and ours. The US and the
CIA have, for many decades, been accused of all sorts of
underhanded stuff. Still, no one has tied together
anything like the recent anti-leader dieoffs we can
clearly see happening. Factually we consider the Russians
"just like us" and clearly they're not.

I've done some reading to try to figure out their mindset because
part of the Middle East mess invoved that mindset. I'm currently
reading a book about a kibbutz; I was floored because I did not
know that USSR was used as a model and admired very much in
the beginnings of the social experiment. I had not figured out
the ramifications of USSR "supporting" Israel in the beginning.

Until Israel became part of the cold war gambits.

I've done some reading about that. The time I'm reading about is
in the 1950s. And it doesn't help that the author is both male
and seems to be enthralled with the socialist concept, and a
city slicker. For instance, he seems to think that their work
day from 6ish to 17:30 was a long day for farm work. He should
have visited some US farms.

What doesn't make sense is that these people admired the Russian
philosophy. If some of the group came from Poland, or talked
to people from Poland and/or Russia, I don't see how they
could admire Stalin.

You've a "time frame failure" here.

I tried not to commit that error.

These people came from Poland
during the 20 and 30s.

Right.

Way before 1945 and the Russian occupation of
Poland. It was very common for young people from all places that
didn't get a direct taste of Soviet rule to admire Stalin at that
time. Especially young people from the inteligentsia.

The author spent 9 months on this kibbutz in the early 1950s.
One of their holidays was still dedicated to Stalin and Lenin.
The visiting work groups had to have some people from Poland
who had first hand experience with Stalin's heavy hand.

I don't know if the visiting group had some people from after the war
Poland (it wasn't that easy to leave then) but wittness the Western
intelligentsia admiring Mao during the 60s and Castro till today.

Yea. Or those following certain of our politicians.

Aha.

grin> Aha! back at you.


I suppose habit is difficult to change.

Yes.

There are a lot of "holes" in this book I'm reading. I keep
asking who made the money . So far I think he's mentioned
war once. That doesn't match with anything else I've read.
He finally stated that he was considered a US spy so a lot of
his raw data could be based on placation. He keeps promising
to discuss the "women's problem". I can't wait .

I'm also considering that he's made the whole thing up but I
don't know how to check. He opens his paper by saying the
names are fictitious and he will identify the kibbutz by
personal request only. I came across another book of a similar
mien (but a completely different subject) that was also written
by people who had this kind of, I'll call it, socialistic thinking.
I had no idea that thinking was going on in the 50s and 60s.

Heck, there is still some of it going on even nowadays.

I wrote that badly. I didn't know while I was living during
the 50s and 60s that that kind of thinking was going on.

Oh, I see. Well, you were growing in more down to earth social
circles, a tad more sane

If a society bases its
tenets on humans rather than invisible gods, acknowledging
that the humans are nasty and wrong would destroy the coherence
of the group.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

Yes, very much so.

I still haven't figured her out.

Well meaning and extremely naive.

It was all dismissed as "ravings of
reactionaries". Then, when after Stalin's death Kchruschev disclosed
what was going on over there, there was a wave of suicides among
Western intelligentsia.

I didn't know that.

snip

I consider it a function of basic survival. It you don't
cheat, you don't get basic things such as food, plumbing,
and clothes.

Exactly.

What I can't figure out is how do one keep one's kids from
saying stuff when they're young. Or would politics and
criticism not even be mentioned in the home?

When your life my depend on it, of course they won't be mentioned.

Does this new generation grow up without any critical thinking
instruction? Or do they have to learn how to do that by
accident?

Actually, they learn it very well because, whether things are or
aren't mentioned, they can't fail to notice the discrepancies between
what they're being told and the reality surrounding them.

But how do they not ask questions when they are very young? I can
remember when I was just a few years old asking my mother why that
woman was so fat. Back then, preagnant was a swear word.

They can ask questions, doesn't mean that the questions will be

answered (other than with platitudes).

I went to the library yesterday to try to find the two Gogol
books. I did rescue a Gogol book, but it's short stories.
The only ones I could find was only available as fucking e-books.
I now know why they've been dumping all the paper books. Two
weeks' ago I rescued astronomy and ornithology books. The
week before that was textiles and crafts and some ecology
and a lot of practical wiring and fixing books.
This country is insane.

Lets say "disturbed".

I don't know. It's more than that here. A law was passed that
is a perfect example of Nazism and everybody is clapping!

I'm not sure what law you refer to, more detail is needed.

Ah, sorry. Every body in the state has to prove it has
medical insurance. If a person doesn't prove it, this year's
income tax forms warned that they will be penalized on next year's
income tax forms. Note that there are no procedures to prove it
nor get insurance. The people who don't have insurance will
end up paying at least three times; these people don't have insurance
because they can't afford it. Now they're going to be forced
into paupers. 19th century city living in England again.

Oh, wonderful, absolutely wonderful. Taxachussetts is ever creative,
ain't it?

For the first time, I am understanding how Hitler was able to get
his power.

Note that one of the biggest concerns of the framers of the US
Constitution was how easily a democracy may generate into a tyranny.
They recognized it.

Yea. There exist at least on politician running for President
who is intent on eliding the document.

Not a big surprise.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

In article <eXUNh.7$25.85@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eu8ck8$8qk_001@s845.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <SJzNh.2$25.117@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu5p20$8qk_001@s797.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <4feNh.41$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu33c7$8qk_002@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <j5UMh.26$25.102@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu0a9t$8qk_001@s798.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <2a614$460283f9$4fe7109$10420@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1ae0f$45f817db$4fe71d4$28690@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

The answers we've seen over the months seem to me in
retrospect to have been rather linear with a lot of
semi-concealed "they're just like us" worldview. With
that premise being wrong, all that follows is as well.

hmmm...I don't think that is the key but it is an important
ingredient.

It is the starting point for understanding. IMO if
someone doesn't "get" this, they don't have any chance
at all.

Sure. I'm working on the part that comes before the desire
to understand appears. This seems to be the affliction
of a great number of people...or I've just begun noticing :-(.

Dammit, we don't even appreciate the difference between
the Russian mind (semi-oriental) and ours. The US and the
CIA have, for many decades, been accused of all sorts of
underhanded stuff. Still, no one has tied together
anything like the recent anti-leader dieoffs we can
clearly see happening. Factually we consider the Russians
"just like us" and clearly they're not.

I've done some reading to try to figure out their mindset because
part of the Middle East mess invoved that mindset. I'm currently
reading a book about a kibbutz; I was floored because I did not
know that USSR was used as a model and admired very much in
the beginnings of the social experiment. I had not figured out
the ramifications of USSR "supporting" Israel in the beginning.

Until Israel became part of the cold war gambits.

I've done some reading about that. The time I'm reading about is
in the 1950s. And it doesn't help that the author is both male
and seems to be enthralled with the socialist concept, and a
city slicker. For instance, he seems to think that their work
day from 6ish to 17:30 was a long day for farm work. He should
have visited some US farms.

What doesn't make sense is that these people admired the Russian
philosophy. If some of the group came from Poland, or talked
to people from Poland and/or Russia, I don't see how they
could admire Stalin.

You've a "time frame failure" here.

I tried not to commit that error.

These people came from Poland
during the 20 and 30s.

Right.

Way before 1945 and the Russian occupation of
Poland. It was very common for young people from all places that
didn't get a direct taste of Soviet rule to admire Stalin at that
time. Especially young people from the inteligentsia.

The author spent 9 months on this kibbutz in the early 1950s.
One of their holidays was still dedicated to Stalin and Lenin.
The visiting work groups had to have some people from Poland
who had first hand experience with Stalin's heavy hand.

I don't know if the visiting group had some people from after the war
Poland (it wasn't that easy to leave then) but wittness the Western
intelligentsia admiring Mao during the 60s and Castro till today.

Yea. Or those following certain of our politicians.

Aha.

grin> Aha! back at you.


I suppose habit is difficult to change.

Yes.

There are a lot of "holes" in this book I'm reading. I keep
asking who made the money . So far I think he's mentioned
war once. That doesn't match with anything else I've read.
He finally stated that he was considered a US spy so a lot of
his raw data could be based on placation. He keeps promising
to discuss the "women's problem". I can't wait .

I'm also considering that he's made the whole thing up but I
don't know how to check. He opens his paper by saying the
names are fictitious and he will identify the kibbutz by
personal request only. I came across another book of a similar
mien (but a completely different subject) that was also written
by people who had this kind of, I'll call it, socialistic thinking.
I had no idea that thinking was going on in the 50s and 60s.

Heck, there is still some of it going on even nowadays.

I wrote that badly. I didn't know while I was living during
the 50s and 60s that that kind of thinking was going on.

Oh, I see. Well, you were growing in more down to earth social
circles, a tad more sane

I don't know if we were sane but we did have an idea of the limitations
of the laws of nature.

If a society bases its
tenets on humans rather than invisible gods, acknowledging
that the humans are nasty and wrong would destroy the coherence
of the group.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

Yes, very much so.

I still haven't figured her out.

Well meaning and extremely naive.

Yea, I need to read more about her time spent in the UN. I want
to see how much influence her attitude had with its welfare
attitude to the Third World.

It was all dismissed as "ravings of
reactionaries". Then, when after Stalin's death Kchruschev disclosed
what was going on over there, there was a wave of suicides among
Western intelligentsia.

I didn't know that.

snip

I consider it a function of basic survival. It you don't
cheat, you don't get basic things such as food, plumbing,
and clothes.

Exactly.

What I can't figure out is how do one keep one's kids from
saying stuff when they're young. Or would politics and
criticism not even be mentioned in the home?

When your life my depend on it, of course they won't be mentioned.

Does this new generation grow up without any critical thinking
instruction? Or do they have to learn how to do that by
accident?

Actually, they learn it very well because, whether things are or
aren't mentioned, they can't fail to notice the discrepancies between
what they're being told and the reality surrounding them.

But how do they not ask questions when they are very young? I can
remember when I was just a few years old asking my mother why that
woman was so fat. Back then, preagnant was a swear word.

They can ask questions, doesn't mean that the questions will be
answered (other than with platitudes).

Oh, I see how that could work. There are other questions but I don't
want to get drifted that far out here.

I went to the library yesterday to try to find the two Gogol
books. I did rescue a Gogol book, but it's short stories.
The only ones I could find was only available as fucking e-books.
I now know why they've been dumping all the paper books. Two
weeks' ago I rescued astronomy and ornithology books. The
week before that was textiles and crafts and some ecology
and a lot of practical wiring and fixing books.
This country is insane.

Lets say "disturbed".

I don't know. It's more than that here. A law was passed that
is a perfect example of Nazism and everybody is clapping!

I'm not sure what law you refer to, more detail is needed.

Ah, sorry. Every body in the state has to prove it has
medical insurance. If a person doesn't prove it, this year's
income tax forms warned that they will be penalized on next year's
income tax forms. Note that there are no procedures to prove it
nor get insurance. The people who don't have insurance will
end up paying at least three times; these people don't have insurance
because they can't afford it. Now they're going to be forced
into paupers. 19th century city living in England again.

Oh, wonderful, absolutely wonderful. Taxachussetts is ever creative,
ain't it?

What is even more creative is that the news says we have to prove
it by July 1st. Now, there are no forms, no procedures, etc.
Even if they automagically popped into everybody's laps today, there's
no way that data can be collected by July 1st nor entered by the
end of the year. So, I can imagine having to pay a "penalty" because
I didn't proove it by the deadline. I may be extremely paranoid
with this one but I'll see by next January. Caveat: I have been told
that my interpretations of the news are wrong; but the news keeps
saying the same thing.

They used a similar approach with another law in 2004..maybe 2005
and nobody complained. Nazism is getting a foothold here.
IF Mass. is the first field test of political tactics, it
might be wise to watch Congress more closely.

<snip>

/BAH

 

[MassiveProng]

On Wed, 28 Mar 07 11:01:28 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

snip

/BAH

Do you really need to quote ANY of the preceding 230 lines, you
stupid bitch? One would think a dial up twit would know a bit about
Usenet.

 

In article <eudhu8$8qk_002@s970.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <eXUNh.7$25.85@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu8ck8$8qk_001@s845.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <SJzNh.2$25.117@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu5p20$8qk_001@s797.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <4feNh.41$25.71@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu33c7$8qk_002@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <j5UMh.26$25.102@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eu0a9t$8qk_001@s798.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <2a614$460283f9$4fe7109$10420@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1ae0f$45f817db$4fe71d4$28690@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

The answers we've seen over the months seem to me in
retrospect to have been rather linear with a lot of
semi-concealed "they're just like us" worldview. With
that premise being wrong, all that follows is as well.

hmmm...I don't think that is the key but it is an important
ingredient.

It is the starting point for understanding. IMO if
someone doesn't "get" this, they don't have any chance
at all.

Sure. I'm working on the part that comes before the desire
to understand appears. This seems to be the affliction
of a great number of people...or I've just begun noticing :-(.

Dammit, we don't even appreciate the difference between
the Russian mind (semi-oriental) and ours. The US and the
CIA have, for many decades, been accused of all sorts of
underhanded stuff. Still, no one has tied together
anything like the recent anti-leader dieoffs we can
clearly see happening. Factually we consider the Russians
"just like us" and clearly they're not.

I've done some reading to try to figure out their mindset because
part of the Middle East mess invoved that mindset. I'm currently
reading a book about a kibbutz; I was floored because I did not
know that USSR was used as a model and admired very much in
the beginnings of the social experiment. I had not figured out
the ramifications of USSR "supporting" Israel in the beginning.

Until Israel became part of the cold war gambits.

I've done some reading about that. The time I'm reading about is
in the 1950s. And it doesn't help that the author is both male
and seems to be enthralled with the socialist concept, and a
city slicker. For instance, he seems to think that their work
day from 6ish to 17:30 was a long day for farm work. He should
have visited some US farms.

What doesn't make sense is that these people admired the Russian
philosophy. If some of the group came from Poland, or talked
to people from Poland and/or Russia, I don't see how they
could admire Stalin.

You've a "time frame failure" here.

I tried not to commit that error.

These people came from Poland
during the 20 and 30s.

Right.

Way before 1945 and the Russian occupation of
Poland. It was very common for young people from all places that
didn't get a direct taste of Soviet rule to admire Stalin at that
time. Especially young people from the inteligentsia.

The author spent 9 months on this kibbutz in the early 1950s.
One of their holidays was still dedicated to Stalin and Lenin.
The visiting work groups had to have some people from Poland
who had first hand experience with Stalin's heavy hand.

I don't know if the visiting group had some people from after the war
Poland (it wasn't that easy to leave then) but wittness the Western
intelligentsia admiring Mao during the 60s and Castro till today.

Yea. Or those following certain of our politicians.

Aha.

grin> Aha! back at you.


I suppose habit is difficult to change.

Yes.

There are a lot of "holes" in this book I'm reading. I keep
asking who made the money . So far I think he's mentioned
war once. That doesn't match with anything else I've read.
He finally stated that he was considered a US spy so a lot of
his raw data could be based on placation. He keeps promising
to discuss the "women's problem". I can't wait .

I'm also considering that he's made the whole thing up but I
don't know how to check. He opens his paper by saying the
names are fictitious and he will identify the kibbutz by
personal request only. I came across another book of a similar
mien (but a completely different subject) that was also written
by people who had this kind of, I'll call it, socialistic thinking.
I had no idea that thinking was going on in the 50s and 60s.

Heck, there is still some of it going on even nowadays.

I wrote that badly. I didn't know while I was living during
the 50s and 60s that that kind of thinking was going on.

Oh, I see. Well, you were growing in more down to earth social
circles, a tad more sane

I don't know if we were sane but we did have an idea of the limitations
of the laws of nature.

Yes, and that's a big part of "sane" already.

If a society bases its
tenets on humans rather than invisible gods, acknowledging
that the humans are nasty and wrong would destroy the coherence
of the group.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

Yes, very much so.

I still haven't figured her out.

Well meaning and extremely naive.

Yea, I need to read more about her time spent in the UN. I want
to see how much influence her attitude had with its welfare
attitude to the Third World.

Hmm, good question, worth studying.

It was all dismissed as "ravings of
reactionaries". Then, when after Stalin's death Kchruschev disclosed
what was going on over there, there was a wave of suicides among
Western intelligentsia.

I didn't know that.

snip

I consider it a function of basic survival. It you don't
cheat, you don't get basic things such as food, plumbing,
and clothes.

Exactly.

What I can't figure out is how do one keep one's kids from
saying stuff when they're young. Or would politics and
criticism not even be mentioned in the home?

When your life my depend on it, of course they won't be mentioned.

Does this new generation grow up without any critical thinking
instruction? Or do they have to learn how to do that by
accident?

Actually, they learn it very well because, whether things are or
aren't mentioned, they can't fail to notice the discrepancies between
what they're being told and the reality surrounding them.

But how do they not ask questions when they are very young? I can
remember when I was just a few years old asking my mother why that
woman was so fat. Back then, preagnant was a swear word.

They can ask questions, doesn't mean that the questions will be
answered (other than with platitudes).

Oh, I see how that could work. There are other questions but I don't
want to get drifted that far out here.

Just keep in mind that you had a system (at least during Stalin's
time) which actively encouraged kids to rat on their parents. Having
your kids to say the wrong thing in school could mean a one way ticket
to Siberia.

I went to the library yesterday to try to find the two Gogol
books. I did rescue a Gogol book, but it's short stories.
The only ones I could find was only available as fucking e-books.
I now know why they've been dumping all the paper books. Two
weeks' ago I rescued astronomy and ornithology books. The
week before that was textiles and crafts and some ecology
and a lot of practical wiring and fixing books.
This country is insane.

Lets say "disturbed".

I don't know. It's more than that here. A law was passed that
is a perfect example of Nazism and everybody is clapping!

I'm not sure what law you refer to, more detail is needed.

Ah, sorry. Every body in the state has to prove it has
medical insurance. If a person doesn't prove it, this year's
income tax forms warned that they will be penalized on next year's
income tax forms. Note that there are no procedures to prove it
nor get insurance. The people who don't have insurance will
end up paying at least three times; these people don't have insurance
because they can't afford it. Now they're going to be forced
into paupers. 19th century city living in England again.

Oh, wonderful, absolutely wonderful. Taxachussetts is ever creative,
ain't it?

What is even more creative is that the news says we have to prove
it by July 1st. Now, there are no forms, no procedures, etc.
Even if they automagically popped into everybody's laps today, there's
no way that data can be collected by July 1st nor entered by the
end of the year. So, I can imagine having to pay a "penalty" because
I didn't proove it by the deadline. I may be extremely paranoid
with this one but I'll see by next January. Caveat: I have been told
that my interpretations of the news are wrong; but the news keeps
saying the same thing.

Hmm, bears observing.

They used a similar approach with another law in 2004..maybe 2005
and nobody complained. Nazism is getting a foothold here.
IF Mass. is the first field test of political tactics, it
might be wise to watch Congress more closely.

Yes, certainly.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eudhu8$8qk_002@s970.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <eXUNh.7$25.85@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

etc.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

Yes, very much so.

I still haven't figured her out.

Well meaning and extremely naive.

Yea, I need to read more about her time spent in the UN. I want
to see how much influence her attitude had with its welfare
attitude to the Third World.

Hmm, good question, worth studying.

We have only to look at the robber barons of the US and the
history of United Fruit in order to understand how and why
the next generation of the wealthy acquired the values they
did.[1] By comparison, theoretical socialism looked pretty good
to them. But then, they had never worked an honest day in
their lives, having no understanding how the wealth they
enjoyed was created, let alone how to actually improve the
economic environment without destroying it. The lessons of
1929 did not take among them, it required more practical
people to change the economic landscape to prevent repetition.

Eleanor was only one voice among the many impractical ideologues
of her age. "We need a change" wasn't new at last fall's US
elections. People are generally raised with the nagging lesson
in the back of their minds, "Leave the world a better place."

For the most part they're incapable of that sort of significance.

We see it here in sci.physics as well, with some people wanting
change for its own sake without understanding the underpinnings
of why the present theories work, perhaps where a tweak might
lead to progress.

Eleanor was no different.

For extra points: How different was the Eleanor ideology from
today's "We have mistreated those poor Muslims for a long
time so they were forced to attack us. Now we need to be
nicer to them and they'll come around and be nice to us."?

[1] Europe's colonialism was just beginning to cost more than
it helped mother countries, except, of course, the gold and
diamond mines of South Africa. Banking and investment had
destroyed Europe's feudal system in the prior century. The
peasant class, which despite many valid complaints had over
generations becomes used to being looked after from cradle
to grave, wanted better conditions. The masses had eager
ears for the socialist theory being spread among them by
well wishers. The benefice of socialism rivaled their
feudal serf status with many promised improvements over
the past.

 

[Phil Carmody]

MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes:

On Wed, 28 Mar 07 11:01:28 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
snip

/BAH

Do you really need to quote ANY of the preceding 230 lines, you
stupid bitch? One would think a dial up twit would know a bit about
Usenet.

Back in January she was unable to read posts longer than about
100 lines. I can't find her post claiming that, but the piece
of shit that calls itself google groups does find a reference
to her ``100 line limitation'' in this thread by J Kirwan,
who had to jump through hoops splitting his posts into reasonable
sized chunks so that BAH could read them:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5ed83284d07fbf3f?hl=en&

Now, at the time she was using
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
and now she's using
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4

And Matti's post was this long:
Lines: 224

The only reasonable conclusion is that, as always it seems,
BAH was spewing lies.

Sad, really.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

In article <10ed8$460ab1d4$cdd08582$9441@DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eudhu8$8qk_002@s970.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <eXUNh.7$25.85@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

etc.

Yes, exactly. Humans will go to enormous lengths to deny evidence
conflicting with their beliefs. The Western European intelligentsia
denied all evidence of Stalin's brutality after WWII, and there was
plenty of evidence present.

Eleanor Roosevelt seems to have helped promote that rosy picture.

Yes, very much so.

I still haven't figured her out.

Well meaning and extremely naive.

Yea, I need to read more about her time spent in the UN. I want
to see how much influence her attitude had with its welfare
attitude to the Third World.

Hmm, good question, worth studying.

We have only to look at the robber barons of the US and the
history of United Fruit in order to understand how and why
the next generation of the wealthy acquired the values they
did.[1] By comparison, theoretical socialism looked pretty good
to them. But then, they had never worked an honest day in
their lives, having no understanding how the wealth they
enjoyed was created, let alone how to actually improve the
economic environment without destroying it. The lessons of
1929 did not take among them, it required more practical
people to change the economic landscape to prevent repetition.

Yes, you can say that "their heart was in the right place but with no

mind to guide it". And the business of never having to work in their
lives is big part of it. The term used in Europe at same time frame
for their likes was "salon communists". Young people from well to do
families, long on zeal, short on understanding.

Eleanor was only one voice among the many impractical ideologues
of her age. "We need a change" wasn't new at last fall's US
elections. People are generally raised with the nagging lesson
in the back of their minds, "Leave the world a better place."

For the most part they're incapable of that sort of significance.

And, for the most part, they've problem with accepting their lack of
significance. Mankind always had problem with this. Few brave souls,
like Ecclesiastes, were willing to look facts in the face, but they
were a small minority. Also, in the past religion made bearing this
burden easier, by assuring everybody that yes, he is significant,
being part of God's plan. I don't think that it is completely
accidental that historically the rapid growth of the various "isms"
which we have with us today coincided with rapid decline in the
standing of religion (mind you, I'm not saying that there is a
causative relationship here, but I perceive a correlation).

We see it here in sci.physics as well, with some people wanting
change for its own sake without understanding the underpinnings
of why the present theories work, perhaps where a tweak might
lead to progress.

Aha. I refer to it as "the modern art approach to science".

Eleanor was no different.

For extra points: How different was the Eleanor ideology from
today's "We have mistreated those poor Muslims for a long
time so they were forced to attack us. Now we need to be
nicer to them and they'll come around and be nice to us."?

Yes, it is quite similar. And the funny thing about these attitudes
is that, while on the surface being very considerate, they are
actually quite egocentric. The unstated assumption behind them is
that we're the drivers of all that's happening in the world, with
others just reacting to what we're doing, having no plans, wishes and
agendas of their own.

[1] Europe's colonialism was just beginning to cost more than
it helped mother countries, except, of course, the gold and
diamond mines of South Africa. Banking and investment had
destroyed Europe's feudal system in the prior century. The
peasant class, which despite many valid complaints had over
generations becomes used to being looked after from cradle
to grave, wanted better conditions. The masses had eager
ears for the socialist theory being spread among them by
well wishers. The benefice of socialism rivaled their
feudal serf status with many promised improvements over
the past.

Yes, it ought to be realized that the world has seen far greater
social and economic change over the past two centuries, than over the
previous two millenia.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

In article <n1mk031g2lknjlbk8puk65dqjuohsmgph1@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 07 11:01:28 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

snip

/BAH

Do you really need to quote ANY of the preceding 230 lines, you
stupid bitch?

In this case, yes. It is the custom that was established a long
time ago and has been unique to the two correspondents.

One would think a dial up twit would know a bit about
Usenet.

Here's a Kleenix, kid.

/BAH

 

In article <87648lfcus.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes:
On Wed, 28 Mar 07 11:01:28 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:
snip

/BAH

Do you really need to quote ANY of the preceding 230 lines, you
stupid bitch? One would think a dial up twit would know a bit about
Usenet.

Back in January she was unable to read posts longer than about
100 lines.

Your specs, as usual, are wrong.

<snip>

/BAH

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 28, 11:21 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
[.....]

Back in January she was unable to read posts longer than about
100 lines.
[.....]
The only reasonable conclusion is that, as always it seems,
BAH was spewing lies.

She may not know.

Given that she operates largely on superstitions on such subjects,
this theory also fits the facts.

 

[Phil Carmody]

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

On Mar 28, 11:21 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
[.....]
Back in January she was unable to read posts longer than about
100 lines.
[.....]
The only reasonable conclusion is that, as always it seems,
BAH was spewing lies.

She may not know.

Given that she operates largely on superstitions on such subjects,
this theory also fits the facts.

Ah - she's fixed her cooker's dodgy connection now,
and her newsreader now works. Makes perfect BAHsense!

Phil

--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 29 Mar 07 11:20:30 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

/BAH

Do you really need to quote ANY of the preceding 230 lines, you
stupid bitch?

In this case, yes. It is the custom that was established a long
time ago and has been unique to the two correspondents.

Absolutely incorrect.

You are only supposed to quote the text that is relevant to your
reply, not the entire several days worth of related topical material,
the material directly related to your current dialog.

You lose... again.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Thu, 29 Mar 07 11:20:30 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

Here's a Kleenix, kid.

/BAH

I've got nine inches of "kid" to go up in your ass with you senile
old hag.

 

[MassiveProng]

On 29 Mar 2007 06:03:59 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> Gave
us:

On Mar 28, 11:21 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
[.....]
Back in January she was unable to read posts longer than about
100 lines.
[.....]
The only reasonable conclusion is that, as always it seems,
BAH was spewing lies.

She may not know.

Given that she operates largely on superstitions on such subjects,
this theory also fits the facts.

Nothing could be more true in this thread.

 

[MassiveProng]

On 29 Mar 2007 16:13:29 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> Gave us:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:
On Mar 28, 11:21 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
[.....]
Back in January she was unable to read posts longer than about
100 lines.
[.....]
The only reasonable conclusion is that, as always it seems,
BAH was spewing lies.

She may not know.

Given that she operates largely on superstitions on such subjects,
this theory also fits the facts.

Ah - she's fixed her cooker's dodgy connection now,
and her newsreader now works. Makes perfect BAHsense!

Maybe should move to alt.ditzes.in.BAHreign

 

In article <m44p03hpunifvf3elbi3qc67ms2cet8iod@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Mar 07 11:20:30 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:


/BAH

Do you really need to quote ANY of the preceding 230 lines, you
stupid bitch?

In this case, yes. It is the custom that was established a long
time ago and has been unique to the two correspondents.


Absolutely incorrect.

Not in this case.

You are only supposed to quote the text that is relevant to your
reply, not the entire several days worth of related topical material,
the material directly related to your current dialog.

I suggest that you read the exchange more carefully.

You lose... again.

I happen to use the repetition because I reread the whole thing
before I begin to think about a reply.

/BAH