article by Woody Harrelson; his take on Iraq & war.

[The Giver]

would such such an article ever be published on a US website or in US print media?

Yes it very well might be but only because of the author's notoriety. And it is most likely Woody's notoriety, and not his lofty stature in the world of international relations, which explains the fact that The Guardian published it. The views expressed are so extreme that they would most probably be dismissed out of hand by most who read them here. Not by all to be sure though. We have elected politicians who also inhabit the twilight zone along with Woody.

 

[Jake the Dog]

The views expressed are so extreme...

can i ask you what makes you so sure that they are?

 

[The Giver]

The views expressed are so extreme...

can i ask you what makes you so sure that they are?

Well keep in mind that The Giver was comparing Woody's views with that of American public opinion when he described Harellson's views as being "extreme". An overwhelming portion of the U.S. public, both those pro and con regarding the Administration's policy regarding Iraq, would also characterize his views as extreme.

 

[Tea]

Over here, and I suspect in the UK too, his views would be regarded as left of centre (roughly in the middle of the left, I think, though I'd have to read it again to place it exactly). But "extreme"? Certainly not. He's not as far left as our Prime Minister (by definition a "mainsteam" figure) is far right - which is to say not very. Howard is on the right, certainly, but not on the far right by any means. Centre to slightly right-of-centre right would be a fair descrption.

 

[Tannin]

Oh, you're back, are you, Tea?

I wasn't sulking. I was just having a rest.

Oh? And you slept right through dinner time?

OK. I was sulking.

It's OK, Tea. I liked it.

No-one else did.

That's not true, Tea. Look at these lovely bananas The Giver gave you.

Hmmm .. They are nice bananas. He is a nice man. Very kind. Did I say "thankyou" to him yet?

No. You were up a tree somewhere. But that's OK. I'll pass the message on for you.

Thanks, Tannin. I think I'll just go to bed now, if you don't mind. Is it OK if I take my bananas?

Of course, Tea. Good night.

 

[Jake the Dog]

sorry, perhaps i haven't made myself clear. i'm well aware of your opinion Giver, i'm just i'm asking why you're sure that public opinion would see Woody's veiws as extreme? have you seen polls?

the reason i ask is because quite a few of my American friends whom i've asked to read Woody's article, agree with Woody. some agree wholly others agree to some extent. i have asked them the question would such an article be published and they have, yes, they think it would but only accompanied by a critical review. they have all expressed the view if they were to be publicly critical about US/Iraq policy most of the those older than Generation X would make them feel severly unpatriotic and ridicule them. they have also said the majority of their peers that they associate with feel, as they do.

since their views and opinions on who supports who differs greatly with you Giver, i wonder if the truth of who supports who and what views the general US public holds, is somewhere in between the two.



(btw, i've invited them to participate in a healthy yet respectful argument here but so far none have joined. i don't know if they are reading this but if they are, join in guys and girls!)

 

[Jake the Dog]

Tea, where is the poem you crafted? i can't seem to find it

 

[Tannin]

In my post about eight posts back, Jake. The one where I was arguing with Cliptin about not being allowed to say "shrub". Tea was looking over my shoulder (as she so often does) and scribbled it down for me.

The Thought Police are here, are there,
in the shadows at the corner of your eye their uniforms are lurking.
Look under beds when you're all alone,
Check your mail - don't touch that phone!
Be nice, be good,
Say "Sir, I obey" (as a patriot should).
They are in your hearts and in your minds,
ghostly echoes on your modem lines.
Never discuss, or hope, or pray,
never say quite what you mean to say -
cause the Thought Police are here, are there,
The Thought Police are everywhere.

Reading it over, it doesn't seem so special, but I think it's the first one Tea has ever done and she was rather proud of it. And, like all the best poetry, it's much better when you read it aloud.

 

[Jake the Dog]

oh that one (yes i knew it was, i was just trying to catch you out on the originator, you or Tea.

regadless, i did enjoy it, quite so actually. thank you.

 

[Cliptin]

But I'd like to see someone actually deal with the matters I raised in my previous post - if "Shrub" is bad, then why is it OK to say "The Butcher of Bagdad" and "Pig-Iron Bob", and "Tricky Dickie"?

It is'nt. I refer to my colleages as Sir (as in: Thank You, Sir). Even the ones who are younger and less experienced than I(unless I slip). It is a sign of respect. And respect begets respect. I do not attempt to belittle those who I disagree with. I encourage good qualities and attempt to make my point about the disagreeable ones.

On the world stage, respect is a big deal. You say you respect the Office but not the man. The man can not be removed from the office. I may not agree with certain decisions but I certainly respect their impact on my life and the lives of others. "The Office" does not make decisions, the man does.

If the man in the Office is denigrated by friends, then foes will not take him seriously either. And that ceratinly makes his job harder.

While I may discuss powerful people I disagree with, I always refer to them by their name: Sadam, Bill Clinton.

 

[Cliptin]

One does not attack on a country on suspision alone.

Agreed. I didn't realize this was an issue. I understand that in the past their have been sensitive security matters that the general public does not get access to. I'm operating under the assumption that the government and its allies have specific information tat is too sensitive to share. The general support and lack of outcry from the Arab region seems to back me up.

 

[The Giver]

Jake and Tannin,

Please do not confuse the general anti-war, anti-US sentiments expressed in the article as being that which The Giver describes as being extreme. Indeed please take note of the fact that The Giver specifically said that both those who are pro-war, and those who are anti-war would find his Woody's views / statements to be extreme. Views and statements such as the following;

This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them "hawks", but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist.

Or this;

A decade later, Shrub follows the same line: "We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people." I'm sure half a million Iraqi parents are scratching their heads over that. I'm an American tired of lies. And with our government, it's mostly lies.

And this;

The history taught in our schools is scandalous. We grew up believing that Columbus actually discovered America. We still celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus was after one thing only - gold. As the natives were showering him with gifts and kindness, he wrote in his diary, "They do not bear arms ... They have no iron ... With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." Columbus is the perfect symbol of US foreign policy to this day.

And finally this;

The fact is that George Bush Sr continued to supply nerve gas and technology to Saddam even after he used it on Iran and then the Kurds in Iraq.

The above statements are not only extremist in sentiment, but are also rampant with half-truths and even in several cases just outright lies. The Giver does not know what polls you are referring to Jake, but if you have polling information regarding American public opinion as to whether or not U.S. Foreign policy is racist or imperialist, or as regards any of the other statements above, please share it with us.

 

[Tannin]

I respect that point of view, Cliptin. (Your "I refer to my colleages as Sir" post.) In formal interactions, I do the same. In informal discussion though, I would find that a fairly severe impediment to good, clear, lively and entertaining expression. On matters of great sensitivity, of course, one is wise to guard one's tongue. Were we discussing religion or race, for example, I'd think twice before calkling the Pope "Shorty", or anything similar. (At least I hope that I would have the sense to do so.) But as for not calling GWB "Shrub" because it might offend someone - sorry, that's just ridiculous. Tea's poem was entirely appropriate. Come to think of it, so is my sig.

 

[Cliptin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,813189,00.html. an interstesting read, at least to me. i realise this is a contentious issue and please believe me i'm not at all trying to stir anything up here. i'm really actually interested in whether such an article would ever be published on US website or in print media.

comments?

I'd honour Kyoto. Join the world court. I'd stop subsidising earth rapers like Monsanto, Dupont and Exxon. I'd shut down the nuclear power plants. So I already have $200bn saved from corporate welfare. I'd save another $100bn by stopping the war on non-corporate drugs. And I'd cut the defence budget in half so they'd have to get by on a measly $200bn a year. I've already saved half a trillion bucks by saying no to polluters and warmongers.

Then I'd give $300bn back to the taxpayers. I'd take the rest and pay the people teaching our children what they deserve. I'd put $100bn into alternative fuels and renewable energy. I'd revive the Chemurgy movement, which made the farmer the root of the economy, and make paper and fuel from wheat straw, rice straw and hemp. Not only would I attend, I'd sponsor the next Earth Summit. And, of course, I'd give myself a fat raise.

Woody doesn't seem to realize that the solutions he proposes would run him out of a job. Supporting the Arts is a luxury. And agrarian societies are not luxurious. It sounds nice. In the world Woody lives in it might work. I wish I could live there. Unfortunately, earth does not work that way.

Would Woody be published in the US? He would have to have an "in". Possible ins could be: enough money, celebrity status, credible analysis. Upon re-reading the article, Woody doesn't actually produce any analysis.

 

[Tannin]

The Giver: Tea was guilty of relying too much on her memory, I think. She should have re-read the piece before posting about it. I remember reading it the first time and thinking "oh, this is over the top". When I got to the bottom, I returned to the top of the page to start picking out the "bad" bits to write a rubuttal of them, and then (as I planned) picking out the remainder of the message to examine its merits. (For, on the whole, I thought the article made a good deal of sense.) But when I read it again, I couldn't seem to find the things that had set off my mental alarm bells, so I lost interest and wandered off to look at some other topic.

Now, let's look at those four excerts again:

#1: (This is a racist and imperialist war ... hijacked a nation's grief") This is not by any means an extreme view. It's commonplace. The only thing that makes it look extreme is the very colorful language used. If I were to take a rough guess, I'd say that Australians are split into more-or-less equal thirds on the proposed war: one third agree with Statement #1 (though most would use a discreet circumlocution instead of the term "imperialist"); another third are "all the way with LBJ" people through and through ... er I mean GWB; and the remainder are "Saddam is probably quite evil but why should I have to pay any extra taxes or anything" people. Polls here seem to bear this surmise of mine out, at least in broad. I should imagine that most Western countries are fairly similar.

#2: ("We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people - I'm sure half a million Iraqi parents are scratching their heads over that ..... I'm an American tired of lies.") Empty rhetoric, that passage: all puffing, no wind. On literary terms, it's a failure. But where is the fuss? Everyone knows that politicians lie all the time. (Shrug.) I remember a survey a little while ago asking people who they trusted the most and who they trusted to tell the truth least. I forget which was the most trusted occupational group, and I forget the final finishing order of the three least-trusted occupations, but the bottom three were: used-car salesmen, lawyers, and politicians. Is your country so different? And, seeing as there are a half-million Iraqis dead these last ten years (give or take) it seems reasonable to suppose that there are a half-million Iraqi parents who are absolutely certain that the West does indeed have a quarel with them. Once you look at the substantive content of this passage, as opposed to the firey rhetoric, there is nothing in the slightest extreme there. It just sounds extreme, until you look at it a little harder.

#3: ("The history taught in our schools ... celebrate Columbus ... perfect symbol of US foreign policy to this day.") Just so. Not in the slightest extreme. A perfectly orthodox view. Even his rhetoric is missing in this passage.

#4: ("George Bush Sr continued to supply nerve gas") This one I am inclined to agree with you on. It doesn't sound in the least likely to me. On the other hand, the more general underlying point, that the West is far from blameless so far as supplying equipemt and raw materials for Iraq's WMD programs, is of course valid. But this is a point that the author doesn't raise - he lets his frothing at the mouth get away from him and fails to communicate his actual point.

In short: on the whole, not extremist, merely very colorful. And as a repesentative of the American Right, surely you have met colorful expression before?

(Tannin! This is THE GIVER you are talking to!)

(Oh. Silly me. Of course he knows about extemely colorful language. In fact he quite possibly invented it. :wink: Thanks Tea. You can go back to bed now.)

 

[Cliptin]

Having said that, it is apparent to this member that there is a cultural / communication gap between the Australian and American members on occasion and perhaps this is yet another example of that.

I also wonder whether or not it is understood how intertwined the US government its with the people.

To quote Scott Ritter, Ex-UN weapons inspector, in his address to the Iraqi parliament:

There has been a disturbing tendency among certain nations, Iraq included, to try and make a distinction between the people of the United States and the government of the United States. This is wrong. Ultimately, there is no difference, and indeed there can be no difference between the people of the United States and the government of the United States, because thanks to our constitution, we the people of the United States of America are the government. In America today, we take very seriously the concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people. This represents the very foundation of the democratic way of life we love and cherish. And you do us a great disservice if you think and say otherwise.

 

[Cliptin]

I respect that point of view, Cliptin. (Your "I refer to my colleages as Sir" post.) In formal interactions, I do the same. In informal discussion though, I would find that a fairly severe impediment to good, clear, lively and entertaining expression. On matters of great sensitivity, of course, one is wise to guard one's tongue. Were we discussing religion or race, for example, I'd think twice before calkling the Pope "Shorty", or anything similar. (At least I hope that I would have the sense to do so.) But as for not calling GWB "Shrub" because it might offend someone - sorry, that's just ridiculous. Tea's poem was entirely appropriate. Come to think of it, so is my sig.

I guess you would have to label me dull then as I occasionally say it when talking to friends in real life such as Dozer.

Now, don't confuse stances of The Giver and I. I determined that if I was going to be irritated about such disrespect that I should at least make you aware and give you the opportunity to stop. I support your right to continue and if you do so I'll just have to cope. It was The Giver who suggested that it might be curtailed out of courtesy.

PS For the record, my feelings are probably closer to disappointment that we as a country are not taken seriously.

 

[The Giver]

Tannin,

Regarding your points posted above in order;

#1 - This is very much an extremist view here in the U.S. which is the context in which The Giver was speaking.

#2 - The small portion of the original passage The Giver quoted is all that you have re-posted here. The key sentence is the last in that passage which The Giver believes is (again here in the U.S.) an extremist viewpoint, that is - "And with our government, it's mostly lies."

#3 - Again, here in the U.S., this would be viewed IMO as an extremist statement.

#4 - To say that G.W. Bush sold Iraq nerve gas is an outright lie. As for your statement "On the other hand, the more general underlying point, that the West is far from blameless so far as supplying equipemt and raw materials for Iraq's WMD programs, is of course valid." The Giver would characterize that as an excellent example of a half-truth. Because manufacturing equipment was sold to Iraq for pharmaceutical or for other non-wmd purposes does not make the U.S. responsible or liable for Iraq having misused these goods for nefarious purposes. The equipment you describe was sold to Iraq not by the U.S. Government but rather by the private sector. Prior to the banning of exporting such items to Iraq by the U.S. Gov. such items were sold directly to Iraqi Universities, hospitals etc.. And following the ban these goods were sold to third parties who then illegally transhipped them to Iraq through other nations.

 

[Tannin]

Oh, don't worry Cliptin: we Australians make it a point of honour never to take anyone's country seriously, least of all our own. That sounds like a joke. Actually, though I write it with a smile on my face, it's not. It's one of those mythical "national character" things that really do have more than a grain of truth to them. (Like the strange reserve of the English and ... er .. dare I mention the - peculiar (to us) - American attitude to Old Glory?)

James - being one of those poshified Chardonay intellectuals from Sydney who think Banjo Patterson is gauche and a digger is something you hire to excavate your swimming pool with - won't agree with me, of course. Unlike James, I am not in the slightest offended by terms like "down under" or "fair dinkum", and use them myself quite regularly.

(Tannin! Now you've gone and offended James as well. If you'd take the trouble to read your sig instead of just quoting it, you'd see that it doesn't say "the key to success is trying to offend everybody".)

(Go to sleep, Tea.)

Like many Australians (though not, alas, nearly as many as the national myth has it) I regard this habitual disrespect as a throughly good thing, and heartily encourage people of all nations to adopt as much of it as possible. In fact, I often think that if you shear it of its sense of humour, it is not all dissimilar to many of the founding principles of the United States, in particular that healthy sense of distrust which informs Jefferson's famous "tree of liberty" quote, the right to bear arms to keep the government honest, the many constitutional restrictions on the unfettered power of the state, and so on. But if I were to pick an American sentiment that most closely matches this particularly Australian attitude, I should without hesitation choose Mark Twain. Twain, that quintessential American, is about as Australian as you can get. Would he have said "Shrub"? Or something wittier and less complimentary? The latter, I suspect.

 

[The Giver]

Now, don't confuse stances of The Giver and I. I determined that if I was going to be irritated about such disrespect that I should at least make you aware and give you the opportunity to stop. I support your right to continue and if you do so I'll just have to cope. It was The Giver who suggested that it might be curtailed out of courtesy.

Here is what The Giver actually said - "It is a matter of being courteous one imagines in the final analysis." The Giver did so knowing full well it would be dismissed out of hand by those to whom he addressed it. Yet both this and reply it garnered from brother Tannin will no doubt become very useful at some point in the future.

 

[Jake the Dog]

The Giver does not know what polls you are referring to Jake, but if you have polling information regarding American public opinion as to whether or not U.S. Foreign policy is racist or imperialist, or as regards any of the other statements above, please share it with us.

actually if you re-read my post you'll see that i was asking you if you had such polls. the reason i asked was because you seem so sure that the most of your countrypeople share your view and i'm wondering what base your sure statements on? statistical data such as polls or something else?

my discussions with other Americans has shown me that that views contrary to yours certainly exists in some of the Americans population and it may possibly have more following that what you think.

i'd just like to know which is the more true, that's all.

 

[Tannin]

Discourteous? Get real. He's an elected public servant, for the love of Mike, not a Holy Icon.

 

[Tannin]

Now hang on a minute here. On the one hand, we read: "Ultimately, there is no difference, and indeed there can be no difference between the people of the United States and the government of the United States", and one the other hand we hear that "we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people". This, in the Bagdad Butcher's immortal phrase, must surely be the mother of all double-standards!

Oh, and I should love to have seen the usual suspects pushing this particular line a couple of years ago when a Democrat was in office.

 

[The Giver]

Discourteous? Get real. He's an elected public servant, for the love of Mike, not a Holy Icon.

No it was suggested that you were being discourteous to those here who found your use of "shrub" to be offensive. Yet you seemingly do not care and instead find those who are offended to be at fault rather than you yourself. Not a big deal but a bit disappointing none the less.

 

[James]

As yet there has been no denial that it was in fact used in a negative context by those who did so.

Well, I assume it was used negatively, but then I know the author. Since my dad isn't here to defend himself, it seems a bit difficult to come to a definitive answer.

Belittling in other words and therefore offensive when it is used to personally insult someone who many of us here in America admire.

There are people in the US that admire Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, and so on. Is one not allowed to be critical or insult those leaders therefore? Or is there some arbitrary number of supporters of an individual which then removes them from the list of targets of (what is in the case of the above, really very mild) personal insults?

I'm just trying to understand.

The use of "Shrub" is seen as diminutive

... and then you quote the definition of "diminutive" which, unsurprisingly, does have a negative connotation. I can just imagine how you would tear apart this argument if someone at SR used it! :wink:

 

[James]

James - being one of those poshified Chardonay intellectuals from Sydney who think Banjo Patterson is gauche and a digger is something you hire to excavate your swimming pool with - won't agree with me, of course. Unlike James, I am not in the slightest offended by terms like "down under" or "fair dinkum", and use them myself quite regularly.

Oh, I have no argument with "fair dinkum," "strewth," "stone the crows," etc. I think the only reason "down under" annoys me is because it's a very northern-hemisphere view of things.

Banjo is fine by me - learnt some of his stuff in school - and I'm okay with diggers of all types. That said, "the moms and dads" and "battlers" are two terms I'm not enamoured of because I find them a facile and lazy over-simplification.

I'm not particularly a fan of Chardonnay, either. A good Tasmanian Pinot Noir, say, certainly...

 

[The Giver]

The Giver does not know what polls you are referring to Jake, but if you have polling information regarding American public opinion as to whether or not U.S. Foreign policy is racist or imperialist, or as regards any of the other statements above, please share it with us.

actually if you re-read my post you'll see that i was asking you if you had such polls. the reason i asked was because you seem so sure that the most of your countrypeople share your view and i'm wondering what base your sure statements on? statistical data such as polls or something else?

my discussions with other Americans has shown me that that views contrary to yours certainly exists in some of the Americans population and it may possibly have more following that what you think.

i'd just like to know which is the more true, that's all.

The passage which you quote above is a response to the following question from you posted earlier;

sorry, perhaps i haven't made myself clear. i'm well aware of your opinion Giver, i'm just i'm asking why you're sure that public opinion would see Woody's views as extreme? have you seen polls?

The Giver was merely asking which polls you were referring to when you asked The Giver if he had seen the polls you mention above.

As for your challenge to present polling information regarding Woody's handywork you are going to have to be far more specific in telling The Giver exactly what it is you want than you have been so far. Are you referring to support, or lack thereof, for military intervention in Iraq? Or what? There are no specific polls as regards Woody's article or vast majority of the many subjects it covers. Nor are there any regarding the specific views The Giver describes as extreme. So what exactly what is it you want polling information on? Keep in mind that The Giver has gone out of his way to be clear that the simple fact that Woody is anti-war is not what The Giver finds extremist in nature. If you doubt that you need only look back through the thread for confirmation.

 

[James]

Yet you seemingly do not care and instead find those who are offended to be at fault rather than you yourself. Not a big deal but a bit disappointing none the less.

It's funny because that does sum up my view of some of The Giver's postings, but there you go. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Personally I'm a "respect the person, not the office" sort of guy. Respect is not necessarily accorded because that person's views agree with my own - there are plenty of people for whom I have respect but who I don't agree with.

 

[Tannin]

First you affect an absurd hypersensitivity, and then you attempt to claim that your alleged problem is actually discourtesy on the part of others. No. That one won't wash, Bubba.

 

[Tannin]

(Just for those who don't follow these things closely, I better point out that The Giver, who claims to be offended by the mildest of terms used to describe the current US President (who just happens to be a Republican) has himself repeatedly used a made-up name for the immediate past President who, completely by chance (of course) happens to be a Democrat. The mother of all double standards, it seems, has a twin sister, who is alive and well and living in Florida.)

 

[The Giver]

As yet there has been no denial that it was in fact used in a negative context by those who did so.

Well, I assume it was used negatively, but then I know the author. Since my dad isn't here to defend himself, it seems a bit difficult to come to a definitive answer.

The Giver was not referring to your Dad when he wrote the above to Jake. He was referring to Tannin. FWIW, G.W. Bush is neither here at SF to defend himself. Nor was he present to defend himself when your Dad made his remarks assuming he did so in some public setting. Again, it's not a big deal.

Belittling in other words and therefore offensive when it is used to personally insult someone who many of us here in America admire.

There are people in the US that admire Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, and so on. Is one not allowed to be critical or insult those leaders therefore? Or is there some arbitrary number of supporters of an individual which then removes them from the list of targets of (what is in the case of the above, really very mild) personal insults?

I'm just trying to understand.

The point is not that the terms you mention above are insulting or offensive to the persons they refer to, or offensive to those in America who may admire these individuals. After all, they are not members here and so could not possibly be offended by anything you say about G.W. Bush or the others you mention above. But Clipton and The Giver are members here and as such it would seem that those who do offend us by using such derogatory terms to refer to President Bush would want to know they were doing so. It would come as no surprise that you or the others would not be particularly interested in sparing The Giver's feelings, but one would think you might feel differently regarding Clipton... perhaps not.

 

[The Giver]

First you affect an absurd hypersensitivity, and then you attempt to claim that your alleged problem is actually discourtesy on the part of others. No. That one won't wash, Bubba.

What statements of The Giver are you specifically referring to above when you say "affect an absurd hyper-sensitivity"? Clipton brought the subject of your use of term shrub into the discussion, not The Giver. The Giver was primarily offended by Mr. Walker's comments regarding President Bush which were far more offensive than his use of the word "shrub". For the record, The Giver has let your use of the term along Mercutio's slide by on many occasions before here. It was only because Clipton brought it up that The Giver jumped in to discuss it.

You seem offended by the suggestion that you were being discourteous. The Giver is tempted to characterize your being offended as ridiculous and wholly your own fault. But for the sake of international relations he shall refrain from doing so. 8)

 

[The Giver]

(Just for those who don't follow these things closely, I better point out that The Giver, who claims to be offended by the mildest of terms used to describe the current US President (who just happens to be a Republican) has himself repeatedly used a made-up name for the immediate past President who, completely by chance (of course) happens to be a Democrat. The mother of all double standards, it seems, has a twin sister, who is alive and well and living in Florida.)

But Tannin... Clipton is also offended by the use of derogatory terms to describe President Bush. Where is the double standard as regards him?

Who here has ever asked The Giver not use the term "Bubba" to describe former President Clinton because they found it offensive? Please speak up if you are out there. Again, no double standard on The Giver's part there.

Did not The Giver refrain from using the term "down under" as a courtesy to James? Does not Clipton deserve the same courtesy? Or are we to indeed have a double standard when it comes to being courteous to the American membership?

 

[The Giver]

Personally I'm a "respect the person, not the office" sort of guy. Respect is not necessarily accorded because that person's views agree with my own - there are plenty of people for whom I have respect but who I don't agree with.

It is good to know that you are a "respect the person" sort of man. How about your fellow members here at SF? Do you respect them enough to refrain from using derogatory language which they find offensive? Or shall you simply dismiss them as being ridiculous as others have?

 

[Jake the Dog]

ok, now you're saying that it's not your view. whatever. yet at first you state several times, without stating they are not your views:

The views expressed are so extreme that they would most probably be dismissed out of hand by most who read them here.

The above statements are not only extremist in sentiment, but are also rampant with half-truths and even in several cases just outright lies

you yourself have expressed and strong negative stance on Woody's article.

Well The Giver's opinion is that it is narrow minded and very biased assessment of the U.S. / Iraq situation. Woody is not only ill-informed but, sadly, one suspects also a bit brain damaged from all the drug abuse.

later on you back-track and say it's very much an extremist view in the U.S. however, nowhere up until your very last post to me had you not at all made it clear that you do not find Woody's article extremist in nature. given all your previous comments on the his article and your comment regarding your low opinion of Woody, how am i supposed to extrapolate that your own opinion is different? they appear to be very much in line if you ask me. sorry, but i'm not a mind reader.

regardless of all this, you've made the statement on behalf of so many of your countrypeople that they would find Woody's comments extreme. this would mean a massive majority support for all things vastly contrary to Woody's beliefs. how exactly do you know this and can you substantiate the views you're expressing behalf of so many people.

 

[James]

It is good to know that you are a "respect the person" sort of man. How about your fellow members here at SF? Do you respect them enough to refrain from using derogatory language which they find offensive? Or shall you simply dismiss them as being ridiculous as others have?

I think the important thing to realise here is that I haven't insulted anyone. The certain derogatory term incident being played out here is not about anything I've said.

As for the question about the members of SF, I don't respect them because they are members of SF, I respect certain ones individually because of different qualities. I respect the person, not the office, as I believe I have mentioned before. :roll:

 

[Mercutio]

The, Cliptin's nick has two "i"s.

I don't think I've ever corrected anyone for describing Bill Clinton as "Slick Willy" or "Bubba", nor even particularly taken offense. One's opinion on the subject of presidential politics is personal. The matter should be dropped. The arguing parties aren't going to see eye to eye here, no matter how vociferous the argument becomes.

 

[James]

FWIW, G.W. Bush is neither here at SF to defend himself. Nor was he present to defend himself when your Dad made his remarks assuming he did so in some public setting. Again, it's not a big deal.

I think the President of the US is in a position where he can reasonably expect public comment about his decisions. I fail to see the merit of this argument.

The point is not that the terms you mention above are insulting or offensive to the persons they refer to, or offensive to those in America who may admire these individuals. After all, they are not members here and so could not possibly be offended by anything you say about G.W. Bush or the others you mention above. But Clipton and The Giver are members here and as such it would seem that those who do offend us by using such derogatory terms to refer to President Bush would want to know they were doing so.

So is your argument that we should never discuss a topic that may offend an SF member? Or is it that having been informed of that offence, the protagonists should immediately bow to the offended parties' views without question? (And obviously the implication is then that any failure to do so underlines their boorishness and rudeness.)

This does seem to be in direct contravention with your stirring words on the subject of free speech when this board started up - would you like me to quote from it? I think I see a particularly apt paragraph or two.

It would come as no surprise that you or the others would not be particularly interested in sparing The Giver's feelings, but one would think you might feel differently regarding Clipton... perhaps not.

Ah, poor Giver, your lot is truly a miserable one. Constantly, cruelly and indeed unjustly set upon by others, you have given up on their better sides ever showing through towards your poor self. However, you still harbour a strong enough belief in basic humanity to launch a plea from your much abused position for the bullies to spare Cliptin from their unkind words. Such bravery! Such self-sacrifice! Such pathos!

Perhaps I'm being unkind (as usual, it must be said!), but it did strike me as amusing.

 

[James]

I don't think I've ever corrected anyone for describing Bill Clinton as "Slick Willy" or "Bubba", nor even particularly taken offense. One's opinion on the subject of presidential politics is personal. The matter should be dropped. The arguing parties aren't going to see eye to eye here, no matter how vociferous the argument becomes.

Fair enough Merc. I was in mid post when you said the above, and I'm quite happy to stop here.

 

[Cliptin]

Lest someone else mis-speak for me I shall quote myself:

I determined that if I was going to be irritated about such disrespect <strike>that</strike> then I should at least make you aware and give you the opportunity to stop. I support your right to continue and if you do so I'll just have to cope.

I leave the choice up to you.

As for the question about the members of SF, I don't respect them because they are members of SF, I respect certain ones individually because of different qualities. I respect the person, not the office, as I believe I have mentioned before. :roll:

Ouch, That stings me a little bit.