Guest
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:09:37 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
I liked the way I put it myself.
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
I liked the way I put it myself.
M
MooseFET
Guest
On Aug 27, 6:47 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[....]
and they have down sides. They opted to use them. It is unlikely
that they flipped a coin.
You seem to be assuming evil intent where none makes sense. The US
air force sure as heck isn't going to do it on purpose.
Yes, now how do we fix it?
wrote:
[....]
The US airforce seems to disagree with you. Thise drugs aren't free
and they have down sides. They opted to use them. It is unlikely
that they flipped a coin.
The US has a lot more troops in the area. Simple odds may be at work.
You seem to be assuming evil intent where none makes sense. The US
air force sure as heck isn't going to do it on purpose.
Yes, now how do we fix it?
E
Eeyore
Guest
MooseFET wrote:
time the USAF bombed our troops, the pilots realsied their mistake almost immediately. The video
recording ended up online together with the audio. Shame that the pilots didn't stop to think what
they were doing before releasing those bombs. From the audio it's clear they were too hungry for a
kill.
worse it'll get though.
Graham
They have certainly opted to use them. I consider it to be a bad choice.
No, I absolutely don't assume evil intent. Rather I see a degree of 'trigger happiness'. The last
time the USAF bombed our troops, the pilots realsied their mistake almost immediately. The video
recording ended up online together with the audio. Shame that the pilots didn't stop to think what
they were doing before releasing those bombs. From the audio it's clear they were too hungry for a
kill.
I don't think there is any fix available actually. I do think that the longer we're there, the
worse it'll get though.
Graham
M
MooseFET
Guest
On Aug 27, 10:44 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
out of simple error. Humans make mistakes. They show bad judgement.
I expect that there is as much of that in one army as another. The
mistakes and bad judgements that actually happen may vary from time to
time and case to case.
[...]
suggesting that others in their place would not have done the same.
[...]
result. That is, after all, all we are left with now.
wrote:
You earlier implied that they used them for in moral reason and not
out of simple error. Humans make mistakes. They show bad judgement.
I expect that there is as much of that in one army as another. The
mistakes and bad judgements that actually happen may vary from time to
time and case to case.
[...]
One of the problems with assuming even that, is that you are
suggesting that others in their place would not have done the same.
[...]
Ok so perhaps I should have asked: How do we get to the least bad
result. That is, after all, all we are left with now.
D
David Brown
Guest
John Fields wrote:
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
. But I cannot see,
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
. But I cannot see, by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
C
ChairmanOfTheBored
Guest
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:39:31 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
Again, fuckhead... READ what the asswipe has posted for the last year
and a half... THEN come back and make an assessment. Your "been back for
two days, and I don't see... blah blah blah..." bullshit is meaningless
tripe.
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Again, fuckhead... READ what the asswipe has posted for the last year
and a half... THEN come back and make an assessment. Your "been back for
two days, and I don't see... blah blah blah..." bullshit is meaningless
tripe.
R
Radiosrfun
Guest
"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:46d3e551$0$27831$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...
The best thing for us to do - is ignore Eeyore. One reason is, if you've
read most of his posts - you would see - he is "making up" history. He
claims in one post - that Germany "bombed" the U.S. I don't know of any
history book or Veteran from those years - that will agree with that. If
he's going to argue our logic, ability and so on - at least base it on
"facts". He's not been able to do that. He also states things which he can't
possibly prove. He argued our "bombers" - bomb UK men - pretty much
alluding - on purpose - therefore the title of this particular thread. There
is NO WAY IN HELL - a bomber that high up can tell who is who on the ground.
The Coordinates have to be called in for them to hit a target. It isn't the
"Pilot's" fault! So - it is things like that which have upset the masses -
myself included. Debating is one thing - you and I have already in another
area - politely - which I enjoyed. He on the other hand doesn't know when to
quit - especially with the falsehoods, fabrications, fantasies. You at least
ask reasonable questions and are not making outlandish assumptons. Same with
calling Americans Stupid or saying dumber than he thought - whatever. Have
you seen anyone here bashing the Brits? I can't recall seeing it, except in
myself or another trying to make the same point here. He is painting with a
broad brush. He got himself all covered in the splatter. Instead of
"Accusing" our pilots of murder - as it seems - why not ask the question and
debate if of "WHY" do you think it is happening? WE have lost quite a few
soldiers ourselves - and our people aren't happy about it - either -
regardless whether anyone thinks the war is right or wrong. NO ONE wants to
lose a loved one. War is hell. I feel as bad for a British soldier being
killed as I do - American or any other Ally. I have relatives in the service
and have known boys fresh out of high school who got shipped straight to
Iraq. My nephew just returned from Iraq - from 2 tours and they're saying -
for good. He was one of the lucky ones. Not maimed either.
I have a son who for a long while - was in Afghanistan - on the front lines.
He is still situated such that he could be called there on a moments notice.
He is not yet state-side. I don't think "anyone" "WANTS" war. Not anyone in
their right mind! We can argue right and wrong of this war til we die - it
won't change anything. But you can't go making statements of things you have
no idea of - as Eeyore has. Misinformation, passing unfounded guilt and so
on - tends to piss people off - quick. IF we were to start lambasting Brits
as whatever - you folks would have a right to be pissed and fire back - and
I think anyone here would expect you to. It is your country! Americans' -
like us or not - we may argue and fight amongst ourselves over "health
care" - "politicians" - etc.. but when attacked, we tend to stick together.
That is "my" take on it.
news:46d3e551$0$27831$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...
David,John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:06:58 +0200, David Brown
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:11:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:00:18 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:
Don't you think the State Department has been given insight about
him? I
don't think he could get into the country.
You'd want to exclude someone simply for not agreeing with the
Republican agenda ?
---
Not me.
I'd want to exclude someone because of their professed belief that
the best Americans are dead Americans.
I'd want to exclude such a person from the privilege to breath.
So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing, or "I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" freedom and tolerance? Just because Eeyore is rude, abusive and
intolerant, to the extent that any sensible points he makes are drowned
in the noise, does not mean that your arguments are any better than
childish pouting.
---
From my POV it's not excluding him because of his rhetoric, it's
because of his apparent willingness to contribute to the downfall of
the US and the death of _all_ Americans, whom he professes to hate.
Seems to me to be close to the analogy of refusing to give a madman
a gun.
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the downfall of
the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or violence (which
would be a good reason to curb free speech), except against himself (which
is stupid, but legal). The people making threats or waving metaphorical
guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts, not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
The best thing for us to do - is ignore Eeyore. One reason is, if you've
read most of his posts - you would see - he is "making up" history. He
claims in one post - that Germany "bombed" the U.S. I don't know of any
history book or Veteran from those years - that will agree with that. If
he's going to argue our logic, ability and so on - at least base it on
"facts". He's not been able to do that. He also states things which he can't
possibly prove. He argued our "bombers" - bomb UK men - pretty much
alluding - on purpose - therefore the title of this particular thread. There
is NO WAY IN HELL - a bomber that high up can tell who is who on the ground.
The Coordinates have to be called in for them to hit a target. It isn't the
"Pilot's" fault! So - it is things like that which have upset the masses -
myself included. Debating is one thing - you and I have already in another
area - politely - which I enjoyed. He on the other hand doesn't know when to
quit - especially with the falsehoods, fabrications, fantasies. You at least
ask reasonable questions and are not making outlandish assumptons. Same with
calling Americans Stupid or saying dumber than he thought - whatever. Have
you seen anyone here bashing the Brits? I can't recall seeing it, except in
myself or another trying to make the same point here. He is painting with a
broad brush. He got himself all covered in the splatter. Instead of
"Accusing" our pilots of murder - as it seems - why not ask the question and
debate if of "WHY" do you think it is happening? WE have lost quite a few
soldiers ourselves - and our people aren't happy about it - either -
regardless whether anyone thinks the war is right or wrong. NO ONE wants to
lose a loved one. War is hell. I feel as bad for a British soldier being
killed as I do - American or any other Ally. I have relatives in the service
and have known boys fresh out of high school who got shipped straight to
Iraq. My nephew just returned from Iraq - from 2 tours and they're saying -
for good. He was one of the lucky ones. Not maimed either.
I have a son who for a long while - was in Afghanistan - on the front lines.
He is still situated such that he could be called there on a moments notice.
He is not yet state-side. I don't think "anyone" "WANTS" war. Not anyone in
their right mind! We can argue right and wrong of this war til we die - it
won't change anything. But you can't go making statements of things you have
no idea of - as Eeyore has. Misinformation, passing unfounded guilt and so
on - tends to piss people off - quick. IF we were to start lambasting Brits
as whatever - you folks would have a right to be pissed and fire back - and
I think anyone here would expect you to. It is your country! Americans' -
like us or not - we may argue and fight amongst ourselves over "health
care" - "politicians" - etc.. but when attacked, we tend to stick together.
That is "my" take on it.
D
David Brown
Guest
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
deteriorate to a kindergarten level.
I've been in and out of this group many times over the years. I think
it's fair to say that the scope of Eeyore's generalisations have
worsened, but the gutter-mouth replies to anything other than praise for
the USA and it's administration have remained fairly constant.
If you really think that Eeyore's posts somehow pose a threat to the
USA, then you either wildly overestimate his influence, or are seriously
paranoid.
When people write posts like this, it's not surprising that the threadsOn Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:39:31 +0200, David Brown
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Again, fuckhead... READ what the asswipe has posted for the last year
and a half... THEN come back and make an assessment. Your "been back for
two days, and I don't see... blah blah blah..." bullshit is meaningless
tripe.
deteriorate to a kindergarten level.
I've been in and out of this group many times over the years. I think
it's fair to say that the scope of Eeyore's generalisations have
worsened, but the gutter-mouth replies to anything other than praise for
the USA and it's administration have remained fairly constant.
If you really think that Eeyore's posts somehow pose a threat to the
USA, then you either wildly overestimate his influence, or are seriously
paranoid.
E
Eeyore
Guest
David Brown wrote:
Graham
Example please ?
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
David Brown wrote:
That the Germans planned to bomb the USA (and planned to do so long before Pearl
Harbor) with the first intercontinental bomber and indeed built 2 prototypes is an
undisputable fact however. It's rumoured that one of the prototypes actually made
a 'dry' trial run too.
By the time it was ready, the Germans had mastered rocketry, so the need for a
manned bomber was less of a priority.
Graham
Indeed I didn't make any such claim.
That the Germans planned to bomb the USA (and planned to do so long before Pearl
Harbor) with the first intercontinental bomber and indeed built 2 prototypes is an
undisputable fact however. It's rumoured that one of the prototypes actually made
a 'dry' trial run too.
By the time it was ready, the Germans had mastered rocketry, so the need for a
manned bomber was less of a priority.
Graham
D
David Brown
Guest
Radiosrfun wrote:
group. There are certainly few here who carefully note which historical
"facts" are contested or disputed, and there are plenty (myself
included, I'm afraid) who are quick to post what we remember having read
somewhere, rather than diligently checking for accidental mistakes
before posting.
capable of reaching the USA, and had built a couple of prototypes -
something I find perfectly believable (though I have not done any
checking of sources). His wording exaggerated the truth, but he didn't
claim that Germany actually bombed the USA.
Of course, I'm not denying that he makes mistakes or deliberately
misstates facts - merely that he is not *always* wrong.
be little doubt that any claims that the "friendly fire" deaths were
intentional are absurd. I could not even make a judgement on whether it
was incompetence (and if so, on the side of the American pilots or on
the side of the British calling in their position) or simply a tragic
mistake.
However, there is little doubt that the American forces have a serious
problem with friendly fire - both on their own troops, and on their
allies. About a quarter of allied loses during the 1991 Iraq war were
killed by Americans - that's not a good record. Friendly fire loses do
occur (including, despite Eeyore's claims, caused by the British) - but
the US forces seem to be behind more than their fair share of these
incidents even when accounting for the number of troops involved. I
can't tell you whether it is poor training, incompetence, trigger-happy
gunners, stress, battle fatigue, or any one of dozens of reasons why US
troops seem much more likely to kill allies or innocent civilians than
those of other western countries, but that's the way it is.
A British joke during WWII was:
"When the Germans shoot, the British duck. When the British shoot, the
Germans duck. When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks."
None of this excuses claims deriding all Americans, of course - or
claims that the pilots were incompetent or flying while under the
influence of drugs (until further evidence is shown).
I'll agree there is not much - and I think we agree that that sort of
thing is never called for.
Of course, there are also a few random noise generators who call
everyone left of Attila the Hun a "leftest weenie" or a "liberal" (these
characters seem to think it is an insult).
Of course, if the American president and his administration had the same
attitude (i.e., asking *why* 911 happened, rather than looking around
for someone to shoot) then the world would, I think, be a safer place.
He certainly makes up some of his history - but so do many in this"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:46d3e551$0$27831$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:06:58 +0200, David Brown
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:11:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:00:18 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:
Don't you think the State Department has been given insight about
him? I
don't think he could get into the country.
You'd want to exclude someone simply for not agreeing with the
Republican agenda ?
---
Not me.
I'd want to exclude someone because of their professed belief that
the best Americans are dead Americans.
I'd want to exclude such a person from the privilege to breath.
So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing, or "I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" freedom and tolerance? Just because Eeyore is rude, abusive and
intolerant, to the extent that any sensible points he makes are drowned
in the noise, does not mean that your arguments are any better than
childish pouting.
---
From my POV it's not excluding him because of his rhetoric, it's
because of his apparent willingness to contribute to the downfall of
the US and the death of _all_ Americans, whom he professes to hate.
Seems to me to be close to the analogy of refusing to give a madman
a gun.
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the downfall of
the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or violence (which
would be a good reason to curb free speech), except against himself (which
is stupid, but legal). The people making threats or waving metaphorical
guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts, not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
David,
The best thing for us to do - is ignore Eeyore. One reason is, if you've
read most of his posts - you would see - he is "making up" history. He
group. There are certainly few here who carefully note which historical
"facts" are contested or disputed, and there are plenty (myself
included, I'm afraid) who are quick to post what we remember having read
somewhere, rather than diligently checking for accidental mistakes
before posting.
Actually, I believe he claimed that Germany had planned to build bombers
capable of reaching the USA, and had built a couple of prototypes -
something I find perfectly believable (though I have not done any
checking of sources). His wording exaggerated the truth, but he didn't
claim that Germany actually bombed the USA.
Of course, I'm not denying that he makes mistakes or deliberately
misstates facts - merely that he is not *always* wrong.
I don't know the circumstances surrounding this incident, but there can
be little doubt that any claims that the "friendly fire" deaths were
intentional are absurd. I could not even make a judgement on whether it
was incompetence (and if so, on the side of the American pilots or on
the side of the British calling in their position) or simply a tragic
mistake.
However, there is little doubt that the American forces have a serious
problem with friendly fire - both on their own troops, and on their
allies. About a quarter of allied loses during the 1991 Iraq war were
killed by Americans - that's not a good record. Friendly fire loses do
occur (including, despite Eeyore's claims, caused by the British) - but
the US forces seem to be behind more than their fair share of these
incidents even when accounting for the number of troops involved. I
can't tell you whether it is poor training, incompetence, trigger-happy
gunners, stress, battle fatigue, or any one of dozens of reasons why US
troops seem much more likely to kill allies or innocent civilians than
those of other western countries, but that's the way it is.
A British joke during WWII was:
"When the Germans shoot, the British duck. When the British shoot, the
Germans duck. When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks."
None of this excuses claims deriding all Americans, of course - or
claims that the pilots were incompetent or flying while under the
influence of drugs (until further evidence is shown).
I've seen a few generalised bashing of the British or other groups, but
I'll agree there is not much - and I think we agree that that sort of
thing is never called for.
Of course, there are also a few random noise generators who call
everyone left of Attila the Hun a "leftest weenie" or a "liberal" (these
characters seem to think it is an insult).
I agree 100%.
Of course, if the American president and his administration had the same
attitude (i.e., asking *why* 911 happened, rather than looking around
for someone to shoot) then the world would, I think, be a safer place.
You prove that Eeyore is wrong - not all Americans are idiots!
D
David Brown
Guest
Eeyore wrote:
what you wrote below.
What you actually posted was:
"FYI, the Germans were working on long range bombers to bomb the USA and
did indeed make several that allegedly did the job."
That statement is easily misinterpreted as claiming the Germans
succeeded in bombing the USA.
A lot of what you say is correct - it's the way that you say it that
provokes flames, along with your wild exaggerations about "all
Americans". Condemn intolerance or stupidity - don't condemn all
Americans as being intolerant or stupid!
At the beginning of WWII, America helped out the Allies with supplies -
that's what having alliance pacts is about. They could also see the way
the war was going, both for Germany in Europe and Japan in the Pacific,
and they knew what could happen if Germany and/or Japan won. That's why
they had no choice but to join the war - it was not to "save our skins"
(although we were allies at the time). That does not mean the British
should not be grateful - but equally we are not forever indebted to the
USA, nor should be blindly follow them in any war as a result.
I fail to see a significant difference between what I wrote above, and
what you wrote below.
What you actually posted was:
"FYI, the Germans were working on long range bombers to bomb the USA and
did indeed make several that allegedly did the job."
That statement is easily misinterpreted as claiming the Germans
succeeded in bombing the USA.
A lot of what you say is correct - it's the way that you say it that
provokes flames, along with your wild exaggerations about "all
Americans". Condemn intolerance or stupidity - don't condemn all
Americans as being intolerant or stupid!
That's certainly true.
At the beginning of WWII, America helped out the Allies with supplies -
that's what having alliance pacts is about. They could also see the way
the war was going, both for Germany in Europe and Japan in the Pacific,
and they knew what could happen if Germany and/or Japan won. That's why
they had no choice but to join the war - it was not to "save our skins"
(although we were allies at the time). That does not mean the British
should not be grateful - but equally we are not forever indebted to the
USA, nor should be blindly follow them in any war as a result.
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:20:56 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, of course.
The V2, with a range of 250 miles, was going to do the job
instead...
--
JF
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
---
Yes, of course.
The V2, with a range of 250 miles, was going to do the job
instead...
--
JF
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
David Brown wrote:
Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
D
David Brown
Guest
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.
Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.
Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.
And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".
mvh.,
David
First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though IDavid Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.
Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.
Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.
And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".
mvh.,
David
J
John Fields
Guest
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:26:28 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
If you're trying to be objective, be careful.
It sounds like you're taking sides.
The point isn't whether Americans have advocated nuking other
places, it's about Graham being anti-American and advocating nuking
the US.
---
Technically, ..."for anyone who could read it", yes?
For anyone who could _not_ read it, it would have gone right over
their heads.
---
OK, but in Graham's case it's abundantly clear that he's far from
neutral.
---
Apply "reductio ad absurdum" and it should become obvious that in
Graham's case, laissez faire isn't what he's after.
Besides, I think the quote's a little off...
My meaning was "advocating contributing to the downfall of the USA."
Kind of in the same vein as trying to convince someone to give Lee
Harvey Oswald the bullets.
--
JF
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
---Michael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?
First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.
If you're trying to be objective, be careful.
It sounds like you're taking sides.
The point isn't whether Americans have advocated nuking other
places, it's about Graham being anti-American and advocating nuking
the US.
---
---
Technically, ..."for anyone who could read it", yes?
For anyone who could _not_ read it, it would have gone right over
their heads.
---
---
OK, but in Graham's case it's abundantly clear that he's far from
neutral.
---
---
Apply "reductio ad absurdum" and it should become obvious that in
Graham's case, laissez faire isn't what he's after.
Besides, I think the quote's a little off...
My meaning was "advocating contributing to the downfall of the USA."
Kind of in the same vein as trying to convince someone to give Lee
Harvey Oswald the bullets.
--
JF
D
Don Bowey
Guest
On 8/28/07 3:26 PM, in article 46d49a8d$0$3198$8404b019@news.wineasy.se,
"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
permitting his entry.
"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
Perhaps, but it should be a clue that there is no value at all to the US inMichael A. Terrell wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Somewhere in the lines between "all Americans are stupid" and "Eeyore is
stupid", there lies the potential for interesting discussion and the
exchange of different points of view across the Atlantic (and different
viewpoints within the USA and within Europe), if only people would curb
the knee-jerk flames.
Then you think that his call for the US to be nuked out of existence
is PRO AMERICA?
First, I don't remember having read his making such a call (though I
could easily have missed it) - although I remember reading several posts
from Americans calling for the nuking of other places.
Secondly, I'm not denying that he is anti-American - he made that point
clear enough himself for anyone who could not read it.
Thirdly, someone who is not anti-American (if I *had* thought he was not
anti-American) is not necessarily pro-American. There is no "if you are
not with us, you're against us" - it's perfectly possible to be neutral
with everyone until you know them well enough to form a judgement.
And finally, even if he had called for the US to be nuked, I cannot
imagine how anyone could take such a posting as "contributing to the
downfall of the USA".
permitting his entry.
C
ChairmanOfTheBored
Guest
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:35:45 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
commenting on what you know NOTHING about!
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
Then stop authoring posts like that.ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:39:31 +0200, David Brown
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
Contrary to what some of the others in this thread think, I *have* read
many of Eeyore's posts (it's been a while since I've subscribed to this
group - something to do with the time it wastes
by any stretch of the imagination, how he is contributing to the
downfall of the USA - he is not exactly inciting others to hatred or
violence (which would be a good reason to curb free speech), except
against himself (which is stupid, but legal). The people making threats
or waving metaphorical guns are Americans provoked by Eeyore's posts,
not Eeyore.
Again, fuckhead... READ what the asswipe has posted for the last year
and a half... THEN come back and make an assessment. Your "been back for
two days, and I don't see... blah blah blah..." bullshit is meaningless
tripe.
When people write posts like this, it's not surprising that the threads
deteriorate to a kindergarten level.
So fucking what?
I'm not so sure.
AGAIN, you retarded fuck! If you have not read his horseshit, STOP
commenting on what you know NOTHING about!
Fuck you, and your little dog... errr donkey too!
I never said any such thing, you retarded piece of shit.
C
ChairmanOfTheBored
Guest
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:20:56 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
YOU WROTE:
Radiosrfun wrote:
war'
about it.
FYI, the Germans were working on long range bombers to bomb the USA and
did
indeed make several that allegedly did the job.
Graham
Are you trying to say you didn't write that, boy?
What "alleged" history book did you get that from, asswipe?
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
BULLSHIT!
YOU WROTE:
Radiosrfun wrote:
Germany declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor. There is no 'their
war'
about it.
FYI, the Germans were working on long range bombers to bomb the USA and
did
indeed make several that allegedly did the job.
Graham
Are you trying to say you didn't write that, boy?
What "alleged" history book did you get that from, asswipe?
That is NOT what you wrote the first time, dumbfuck.
Bullshit. Their "rockets" were hardly of an intercontinental variety.
You're a goddamned idiot.
K
krw
Guest
In article <46d2a85b$0$27847$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>,
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com says...
that no one should listen. "Freedom of speech" has two sides.
--
Keith
david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com says...
<snip>
No one has said the dumb donkey shouldn't be allowed to talk, rather
that no one should listen. "Freedom of speech" has two sides.
--
Keith