Hit gravel, broke leg

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Please, do not try to tell me that being politically correct is not
>> preeminently a liberal thing.
>>
>
> In my experience (which is clearly very different from yours) PC crosses
> boundries. I have liberal friend who hate PC and liberal friends who swear
> by it. I have conservative friends who hate PC and conservative friends
> who swear by it. Maybe its different where you are but in NY, PC and
> liberal are not married.
>
> Jeff

Liberals are notorious for being PC. God help any Republican or conservative
who lets slip something that is not PC. I attribute this to the influence of
the major media (think NY Times) and most especially the liberal academic
elite that infest almost all of our institutions of higher education. If you
think free speech is alive and well in our institutions of higher education,
just say or write something that is not PC and you will find yourself
looking for a new job, tenure or no tenure. The professors brain wash their
students and so the vicious cycle gets continued for generations.

Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent
thinkers. Furthermore, the only media that conservatives control is talk
radio which is not big enough to set the agenda.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Re: What is PC and who uses it (Peter I hope you don't find this quoting
> style objectionable):

It would be far better if you were quoting Peter in full. After all, he said
some very interesting things.

> On this side of the pond PC often refers to using new language that is
> supposed to emphasize positive qualities or at least not emphasize
> negative ones therefore:
>
> "Mentally Retarded" becomes "Developmentally Disabled"
> "Disabled" becomes "Differently Abled"
> "Blind" becomes "Visually Challanged"
> "Crippled" becomes "Physically Challanged"
>
> Racial terms change as well.
>
> "Black" becomes "African American" (Do you have the term "African English"
> or "African British"?)
> "Chicano" becomes "Latin American" or "Mexican American"
>
> If you are really into PC then you take great offense at the use of the
> old label. You label anyone who uses the old label as racist or
> "Intolerant American" (that's a joke).

PC is not just about the use of certain terms however. It is mostly about an
attitude based on liberalism (progressive ideas) about the human condition
which has come into play over the past 40 years or so. If you examine other
periods of human history you will be amazed at how previous generations
thought very differently about most things.

Unlike many others, I do not denigrate past thinking. It was solidly based
at the time and if we had been alive then that is exactly what we would have
thought too. It is easy to think with the crowd - it is not so easy to think
against the crowd. What do you think of the phrase ... a good Indian is a
dead Indian? If you had been a pioneer back then, that is exactly what you
would have thought. Do you think that you are now enlightened because you
don't think that? That is an example of PC applied to times past, the worst
application of it that there is.

PC based on progressive thought (liberalism) is more than just words. It is
based on an attitude about how life ought to be. It is fundamentally utopian
at heart. The rest of the world, especially the third world, thinks we are
crazy for thinking the way we do about most things.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> Re: Being Inconsiderate to other members of the group.
>
> I don't recommend puting this one up to a vote. You're not likely to do
> well.

I am only interested in being interesting and stimulating. I leave
"considerateness" to others who have only that to offer.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> Liberals are notorious for being PC.
>
> Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent
> thinkers.

Ed, the unfortunate truth is that PC belongs to both liberal and
conservative. There is a tendency to associate PC with liberals because
liberals often have a more progressive social agenda (read that as "believe
in bigger government that should be more involved in social policy"). In my
experience you find plenty of PC on both sides.

The other unfortunate truth is that both sides, once again, are doing
precious little independent thinking. Most liberals are sheep. Most
conservatives are sheep. Different flocks but still sheep.

To really think means that you have to look at more than just "sound bites"
and "catch phrases". To really think means that you have to put down your
bias, do some investigation (because both liberal and conservative media are
biased no matter what they say), and not accept simple pat answers.

During the presidential debates, they had a format that practically assured
that no useful information would be transmitted. The time format did not
allow for real discussion of the issues. It only allowed the candidates to
restate the positions that were already well known.

The issues are not simple. If we have spent a few hundred messages batting
around politeness and posting style, imagine how complex the issues that the
candidates were discussing are. Two minutes followed by one minute followed
by 30 seconds, etc. isn't going to cut it. Boy are we on another topic now.

Regardless of which side of the political fence you are on it is important
to think. It is one of the reasons I am glad you are here and that I would
never kill file you (or anyone for that matter). I don't only want to hear
opinions that agree with mine. I want my assumptions challenged. If they are
valid assumptions then they will stand up to being challenged.

Enjoy your weekend.

Jeff

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I am only interested in being interesting and stimulating. I leave
> "considerateness" to others who have only that to offer.
>

Well then there are those who will continue to call you a troll (I realize
that you don't care or perhaps even embrace the title).

Your stated reason for me to follow the holy quoting guidelines has been
that it would be considerate to other readers. I don't see how you can now
say that you don't care about it. If you don't care about being considerate
then stop telling me how to post.

Interesting and stimulating without respect for others ultimately is neither
(or is only interesting and stimulating to you). Who cares if you can
stimulate anger among your fellow useneters? That isn't so hard to do. As
I've said before its like pushing a button. You already know that if you say
certain things you will provoke a response. You're not actually making a
point, however. By being rude and generally inconsiderate of others you are
not getting them to consider the merits of whatever argument you want to
make.

So once again you have "provoked" a "properly formatted" entirely
predictable response out of me. But if you don't actually make the attempt
to be where I am and give me something of substance so that I can get to
where you are then you have done nothing interesting and the stimulation has
been wasted.

At this point, I really don't care when you insult me. I don't give it any
weight. It doesn't mean that I won't keep trying to bring you back from the
dark side of the force. It just means that I don't take it personally.

When you actually make a coherent argument (which you sometimes do) you can
be quite interesting to talk to. It is probably the reason that I continue
to talk to you. It isn't like I expect to win you over to my way of
thinking.

Happy trails Ed.

Jeff

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>> Liberals are notorious for being PC.
>>
>> Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent
>> thinkers.

There are two ways to do the above right, both of which escaped you. Here
would have been the preferred way:

"Liberals are notorious for being PC. God help any Republican or
conservative
who lets slip something that is not PC. I attribute this to the influence of
the major media (think NY Times) and most especially the liberal academic
elite that infest almost all of our institutions of higher education. If you
think free speech is alive and well in our institutions of higher education,
just say or write something that is not PC and you will find yourself
looking for a new job, tenure or no tenure. The professors brain wash their
students and so the vicious cycle gets continued for generations.

Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent
thinkers. Furthermore, the only media that conservatives control is talk
radio which is not big enough to set the agenda."

Here is the second way:

"Liberals are notorious for being PC.
[...]

Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent
thinkers.
[...]"

Now your message can began having properly indicated where you have snipped.
But I am going to delete (snip) your message that follows since there is
nothing I want to say in reply. Hence, note the following:
[...]

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I am only interested in being interesting and stimulating. I leave
>> "considerateness" to others who have only that to offer.
>>
>
> Well then there are those who will continue to call you a troll (I realize
> that you don't care or perhaps even embrace the title).
>
> Your stated reason for me to follow the holy quoting guidelines has been
> that it would be considerate to other readers. I don't see how you can now
> say that you don't care about it. If you don't care about being
> considerate then stop telling me how to post.

I am only concerned about being considerate to other readers in a technical
sense. If they have problems with the content of what I say, then that is
their problem, not mine.

> Interesting and stimulating without respect for others ultimately is
> neither (or is only interesting and stimulating to you). Who cares if you
> can stimulate anger among your fellow useneters? That isn't so hard to do.
> As I've said before its like pushing a button. You already know that if
> you say certain things you will provoke a response. You're not actually
> making a point, however. By being rude and generally inconsiderate of
> others you are not getting them to consider the merits of whatever
> argument you want to make.

I want to make others think ... in other words, to stimulate their
intellects. I want to make folks question certain assumptions. Is war always
a bad thing, or are there good wars? Is the present war a good war? Should
we hate Arab militants or not? Is Islam a benign religion or is it an
abomination? What are we to think of liberals who hate war and will not
defend our country against those who would do us harm.

I don't care if I come across as rude and inconsiderate. I most especially
do not care about coming across as friendly and neighborly. I leave that
aspect of human behavior to others. I want to rile things up and cause some
unease.

When I first came on this group several years ago, it was a cesspool of
liberal rants and snide remarks about Bush and the Republicans. That is no
longer the case thanks to me. Now if anyone wants to post their liberal
nonsense, they will encounter me and a happy time will not ensue. That is
the price we pay to have some fairness here on ARBR.

> So once again you have "provoked" a "properly formatted" entirely
> predictable response out of me. But if you don't actually make the attempt
> to be where I am and give me something of substance so that I can get to
> where you are then you have done nothing interesting and the stimulation
> has been wasted.
>
> At this point, I really don't care when you insult me. I don't give it any
> weight. It doesn't mean that I won't keep trying to bring you back from
> the dark side of the force. It just means that I don't take it personally.
>
> When you actually make a coherent argument (which you sometimes do) you
> can be quite interesting to talk to. It is probably the reason that I
> continue to talk to you. It isn't like I expect to win you over to my way
> of thinking.

My simple statement of fact which you quoted at the beginning of your
message brought on your last three paragraphs above? I had no idea I was all
that simulating!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I am only concerned about being considerate to other readers in a
> technical sense. If they have problems with the content of what I say,
> then that is their problem, not mine.
>
> I want to make others think ... in other words, to stimulate their
> intellects. I want to make folks question certain assumptions. Is war
> always a bad thing, or are there good wars? Is the present war a good
> war? Should we hate Arab militants or not? Is Islam a benign religion or
> is it an abomination? What are we to think of liberals who hate war and
> will not defend our country against those who would do us harm.
>
> I don't care if I come across as rude and inconsiderate. I most especially
> do not care about coming across as friendly and neighborly. I leave that
> aspect of human behavior to others. I want to rile things up and cause
> some unease.
>

Some of what you say is great. Your middle paragraph above shows the kind of
thinking that it is good to engage in. Some of your wording is "loaded" and
already leading in one direction but it encourages thinking nevertheless.

Your wording suggests that you have your mind made up, however. It is fine
if you do but then don't present your questions as questions but rather as
your opinion. Certainly don't confuse your opinion with fact.

Your last sentence of the middle paragraph is particularly loaded. When you
say

"What are we to think of liberals who hate war and will not defend our
country against those who would do us harm?"

You have in essense answered all of your other questions but rather than
present your opinion as an opinion you are pretending it is another
question.

Let me give you this liberals take on things (warning...far left
opinion...not fact...ahead)

I believe in people over ideology. Religion is an ideology. Nations are
ideology. I detest the Arab militants who would kill in the name of god. I
equally detest those who would kill in the name of America.

Is there such a thing as a good war?

No.

Are there wars that must be fought?

Yes.

Was this last war an example?

No.

> When I first came on this group several years ago, it was a cesspool of
> liberal rants and snide remarks about Bush and the Republicans. That is no
> longer the case thanks to me. Now if anyone wants to post their liberal
> nonsense, they will encounter me and a happy time will not ensue. That is
> the price we pay to have some fairness here on ARBR.
>

I don't mind encountering you and your opinion. I respect it. I also demand
respect for mine and others. That is where real understanding can take
place. If you can not be moved then you have nothing to contribute to a
discussion. That is true for me as well. Notice above that I did not dismiss
your opinions. I engaged them. I asked myself the questions you asked. I
also took them apart a little becuase I sensed more there than simple
questions. I didn't write you off as a "right wing nutjob". I gave you
respect. I insist on the same respect from you. Then we have a basis upon
which to really tear into issues. I'm not demanding that you see things my
way. Don't demand of me that I become like you. That is real fairness my
friend. When we can each have our opinion and respect for each other, that
is real fairness.

My problem with you has never been your opinions but rather that you don't
like to play fair. Rather then present your idea respectfully you prefer to
attack. When you attack the reflex for the person who is being attacked is
to defend. Then you end up with neither side listening to the other. I've
seen you behave this way about trikes, politics, and posting style.

On the subject of posting style I'm often able to keep you on topic and away
from being insulting but not always.

If you care about your ideas and opinions then say them in a way that people
will listen. Part of that means that you expect some knee jerk responses
regardless of how respectfully you present yourself. Don't let that stop
you. Notice that no matter how personal your attacks against me have
sometimes been, I didn't write you off or resort to name calling. If I did
(and I may have) then I apologize. It was a momentary weekness. I certainly
don't do it as a rule.

> My simple statement of fact which you quoted at the beginning of your
> message brought on your last three paragraphs above? I had no idea I was
> all that simulating!
>

Yes because it gets to one of the important disagreements between us.

Alright Ed, I have quoted you in full. Lets the KF'ers do with me what they
will.

In summary Ed, give me and others on this group some respect. Also demand it
for yourself. But don't do one without the other.

Jeff

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> I am only concerned about being considerate to other readers in a
>> technical sense. If they have problems with the content of what I say,
>> then that is their problem, not mine.
>>
>> I want to make others think ... in other words, to stimulate their
>> intellects. I want to make folks question certain assumptions. Is war
>> always a bad thing, or are there good wars? Is the present war a good
>> war? Should we hate Arab militants or not? Is Islam a benign religion or
>> is it an abomination? What are we to think of liberals who hate war and
>> will not defend our country against those who would do us harm.
>>
>> I don't care if I come across as rude and inconsiderate. I most
>> especially do not care about coming across as friendly and neighborly. I
>> leave that aspect of human behavior to others. I want to rile things up
>> and cause some unease.

Good Grief! Jeff has finally provided a quotation of mine on which to bounce
his thoughts. Maybe we are starting to make some progress after all!

> Some of what you say is great. Your middle paragraph above shows the kind
> of thinking that it is good to engage in. Some of your wording is "loaded"
> and already leading in one direction but it encourages thinking
> nevertheless.
>
> Your wording suggests that you have your mind made up, however. It is fine
> if you do but then don't present your questions as questions but rather as
> your opinion. Certainly don't confuse your opinion with fact.
>
> Your last sentence of the middle paragraph is particularly loaded. When
> you say
>
> "What are we to think of liberals who hate war and will not defend our
> country against those who would do us harm?"

I was thinking of Senator Durbin of Illinois at that point, a senator no
doubt that the estimable and redoubtable Mr. Tom Sherman of the Quad Cities
(Illinois Side) voted for. Ugh! Excuse me for a moment while I go to the
smallest room in my house and throw up at the thought of it.

> You have in essense answered all of your other questions but rather than
> present your opinion as an opinion you are pretending it is another
> question.

The above questions were illustrative examples. I just present my opinions,
the one and only thing that counts. I do not bother much with liberal
opinions since that is the dominant thinking anyway among ARBR members and
does not ever need repeating by me.

> Let me give you this liberals take on things (warning...far left
> opinion...not fact...ahead)
>
> I believe in people over ideology. Religion is an ideology. Nations are
> ideology. I detest the Arab militants who would kill in the name of god. I
> equally detest those who would kill in the name of America.
>
> Is there such a thing as a good war?
>
> No.
>
> Are there wars that must be fought?
>
> Yes.
>
> Was this last war an example?
>
> No.

Wrong on most counts above. Ed Dolan = 100; Jeff Grippe = 0.

>> When I first came on this group several years ago, it was a cesspool of
>> liberal rants and snide remarks about Bush and the Republicans. That is
>> no longer the case thanks to me. Now if anyone wants to post their
>> liberal nonsense, they will encounter me and a happy time will not ensue.
>> That is the price we pay to have some fairness here on ARBR.
>>
>
> I don't mind encountering you and your opinion. I respect it. I also
> demand respect for mine and others. That is where real understanding can
> take place. If you can not be moved then you have nothing to contribute to
> a discussion. That is true for me as well. Notice above that I did not
> dismiss your opinions. I engaged them. I asked myself the questions you
> asked. I also took them apart a little becuase I sensed more there than
> simple questions. I didn't write you off as a "right wing nutjob". I gave
> you respect. I insist on the same respect from you. Then we have a basis
> upon which to really tear into issues. I'm not demanding that you see
> things my way. Don't demand of me that I become like you. That is real
> fairness my friend. When we can each have our opinion and respect for each
> other, that is real fairness.

I do not initiate discussions here on ARBR on any subjects whatever except
rarely. I am strictly a responder. And I will respond to liberal rants with
venom. My only aim in the first place was to get rid of all the obnoxious
liberal posting that was taking place here on ARBR. Thankfully, it is mostly
gone now and I have no wish to resurrect it. ARBR is actually a much nicer
place now that others are no longer engaged in liberal political messages
and snide remarks about Bush and the Republicans.

ARBR however was not destroyed by political liberals (I prevented that). It
was destroyed by a criminal vandal troll who was brainless and gutless. It
is an easy thing to do and you and I could do it too if we wanted to. But I
want ARBR to prosper as I know you do too. I do not interfere with
legitimate posts and I occasionally even contribute something myself. But I
am here primarily as a watchdog to keep the liberals at bay.

> My problem with you has never been your opinions but rather that you don't
> like to play fair. Rather then present your idea respectfully you prefer
> to attack. When you attack the reflex for the person who is being attacked
> is to defend. Then you end up with neither side listening to the other.
> I've seen you behave this way about trikes, politics, and posting style.

Yes, I do attack when I know I am right and others are wrong - and pigheaded
to boot. I am respectful of other's opinions when they have a right to those
opinions grounded in some semblance of sanity.

Also, another thing that kicks in big time with me is when I detect others
are being rude and dismissive. Then I am rude and dismissive right back. You
do not yet fall into that category, but I am expecting! However, from long
experience with many here on ARBR, I know who is who and can often beat them
to the punch. The best defense is a good offense. Everything with me is ***
for tat and I was not born yesterday. I have a long memory and I like to
keep my knife sharp and my gunpowder dry.

> On the subject of posting style I'm often able to keep you on topic and
> away from being insulting but not always.
>
> If you care about your ideas and opinions then say them in a way that
> people will listen. Part of that means that you expect some knee jerk
> responses regardless of how respectfully you present yourself. Don't let
> that stop you. Notice that no matter how personal your attacks against me
> have sometimes been, I didn't write you off or resort to name calling. If
> I did (and I may have) then I apologize. It was a momentary weekness. I
> certainly don't do it as a rule.
>
>> My simple statement of fact which you quoted at the beginning of your
>> message brought on your last three paragraphs above? I had no idea I was
>> all that simulating!
>>
>
> Yes because it gets to one of the important disagreements between us.
>
> Alright Ed, I have quoted you in full. Lets the KF'ers do with me what
> they will.
>
> In summary Ed, give me and others on this group some respect. Also demand
> it for yourself. But don't do one without the other.

You only need to post the right way and all will be forgiven.

Ed Dolan the Compassionate - Minnesota

PS. Are you sure you looked up the expressions "pulling your leg" and
"tongue in cheek" like I recommended you do some time ago?

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wrong on most counts above. Ed Dolan = 100; Jeff Grippe = 0.
>
No Ed not wrong. My opinion. For me completely correct. Actual score Ed
Dolan = 100, Jeff Grippe = 100. So far all we have both done is present our
opinion so you can not at this point deduct point. I have not engaged your
opinion beyond saying I disagree nor have you engaged mine. We haven't had
more than the opening of a discussion. You have said nothing to counter my
argeument and I have said nothing to counter yours. Saying "Wrong..." is not
argueing (have I just walked out of a Monty Python sketch?).

> I do not initiate discussions here on ARBR on any subjects whatever except
> rarely. I am strictly a responder. And I will respond to liberal rants
> with venom. My only aim in the first place was to get rid of all the
> obnoxious liberal posting that was taking place here on ARBR. Thankfully,
> it is mostly gone now and I have no wish to resurrect it. ARBR is actually
> a much nicer place now that others are no longer engaged in liberal
> political messages and snide remarks about Bush and the Republicans.
>

Well I didn't start the political discussion either but rather responded to
your conservative rant. I don't like ranting from either side. As I've said
before both sides have their fair share of sheep. When I hear a rant, I know
that thinking is not taking place. That is how I feel when I read some of
your posts.

I am a liberal. I am quite far to the left I would say but you have yet to
see me rant. I like to think of myself as someone who thinks. Being someone
who thinks I know that rants (no matter which side they come from) can not
capture the complexities of the issues that face us today. Unfortunately all
our politicians (from both sides) do these days is rant and engage in
largely self-interested behavior. The left is no better than the right in
this regard. I hate being this cynical but that is the way I see it.

> Yes, I do attack when I know I am right and others are wrong - and
> pigheaded to boot. I am respectful of other's opinions when they have a
> right to those opinions grounded in some semblance of sanity.
>

I don't like pigheaded either but you don't get to decide whose opinions are
grounded in some semblance of sanity and who's aren't. I the same reason
that I prefer no to edit. I know I can't escape my own bias. My opinions are
not right just because they are mine. Yours are not right just because they
are yours. Ed Dolan does not get to define right and wrong. If both side
were to do that then there would be no discussion of any substance. It would
devolve down to "Me", "No Me", "No Me", "No Me"...etc.

> Also, another thing that kicks in big time with me is when I detect others
> are being rude and dismissive. Then I am rude and dismissive right back.
> You do not yet fall into that category, but I am expecting! However, from
> long experience with many here on ARBR, I know who is who and can often
> beat them to the punch. The best defense is a good offense. Everything
> with me is *** for tat and I was not born yesterday. I have a long memory
> and I like to keep my knife sharp and my gunpowder dry.
>

Ed you are the king of rude and dismissive which is why I started going at
it with you in the first place. You can keep expecting it from me but you
won't get it. If anything my posts have been against rude and dismissive.
Most of the metaphors you used in the second half of your paragraph above
were fighting metaphors. My answer is that if you looking for a fight you
are bound to find one. It is instinctive for humans to fight. We are easily
provoked and quick to repond. But I'm a liberal remember. I don't want to
fight with you Ed. I prefer to throw all the idea onto the mat and fight
with them to see which ones might be able to stand up.

> You only need to post the right way and all will be forgiven.

I am sticking to your way of posting for the time being because otherwise
the discussion is only about how I post and that is boring. Like it or not I
make no promises to continue to do this, however. I do not want to lull you
into believing that I am a changed person.


> PS. Are you sure you looked up the expressions "pulling your leg" and
> "tongue in cheek" like I recommended you do some time ago?

I answered this before. You do not come off as witty and colorful which is
why we are having this whole discussion.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[...]
>> Yes, I do attack when I know I am right and others are wrong - and
>> pigheaded to boot. I am respectful of other's opinions when they have a
>> right to those opinions grounded in some semblance of sanity.
>>
>
> I don't like pigheaded either but you don't get to decide whose opinions
> are grounded in some semblance of sanity and who's aren't. I the same
> reason that I prefer no to edit. I know I can't escape my own bias. My
> opinions are not right just because they are mine. Yours are not right
> just because they are yours. Ed Dolan does not get to define right and
> wrong. If both side were to do that then there would be no discussion of
> any substance. It would devolve down to "Me", "No Me", "No Me", "No
> Me"...etc.

You need to have been here about two years ago when this group was a pig sty
of liberal posting. That is no longer the case thanks to me. I fought fire
with fire which is the only way to do it. Sweet reason is for symposiums in
Heaven, not for the realities of this earth.

>> Also, another thing that kicks in big time with me is when I detect
>> others are being rude and dismissive. Then I am rude and dismissive right
>> back. You do not yet fall into that category, but I am expecting!
>> However, from long experience with many here on ARBR, I know who is who
>> and can often beat them to the punch. The best defense is a good offense.
>> Everything with me is *** for tat and I was not born yesterday. I have a
>> long memory and I like to keep my knife sharp and my gunpowder dry.
>>
>
> Ed you are the king of rude and dismissive which is why I started going at
> it with you in the first place. You can keep expecting it from me but you
> won't get it. If anything my posts have been against rude and dismissive.
> Most of the metaphors you used in the second half of your paragraph above
> were fighting metaphors. My answer is that if you looking for a fight you
> are bound to find one. It is instinctive for humans to fight. We are
> easily provoked and quick to repond. But I'm a liberal remember. I don't
> want to fight with you Ed. I prefer to throw all the idea onto the mat and
> fight with them to see which ones might be able to stand up.

I know liberals like I know the back of my hand because I was one myself in
my misspent youth. I fight the way they fight, dirty and with no rules. I go
for the jugular just like they do. I mostly just plain hate them, especially
with regard to their position on the War in Iraq. To try to reason with a
liberal is an exercise in futility.

>> You only need to post the right way and all will be forgiven.
>
> I am sticking to your way of posting for the time being because otherwise
> the discussion is only about how I post and that is boring. Like it or not
> I make no promises to continue to do this, however. I do not want to lull
> you into believing that I am a changed person.

Post the RIGHT way and forget all that other nonsense of yours. Newsgroups
are difficult enough without everyone posting idiosyncratically.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jeff Grippe wrote:
> Re: What is PC and who uses it (Peter I hope you don't find this quoting
> style objectionable):

Oh, I can live with it without making a song and dance, even if that is
"correct form"...

> On this side of the pond PC often refers to using new language that is
> supposed to emphasize positive qualities or at least not emphasize negative
> ones therefore:
>
> "Mentally Retarded" becomes "Developmentally Disabled"
> "Disabled" becomes "Differently Abled"

This one is one that is really daft, and we sometimes, but not often see
it here. It is daft for 2 reasons. First, there is no real stigma
(AFAICT) to the term "disabled". It is simply a descriptive statement.
Second, Lance Armstrong is "differently abled" to most people, but I
don't think he needs any mobility concessions as a result!

> "Black" becomes "African American" (Do you have the term "African English"
> or "African British"?)

No. Many of the black population in the UK refer to themselves as
Afro-Carribean, which is the main point of entry in the wake of WW2 when
anyone was welcome to the UK from the Empire to get work done. It's
(again AFAICT) descriptive and they're not worried about the term "black".

> If you are really into PC then you take great offense at the use of the old
> label. You label anyone who uses the old label as racist or "Intolerant
> American" (that's a joke).

Though it is ironic that the intolerance exhibited by these people is
the intolerance that made the original terms problematical. It's
intolerance that's the basic problem, not calling things by descriptive
names.

> What are things like on your side of the world?

As suggested, varies quite a lot with, on one hand right-on dickheads
who *think* they're paid-up liberals and socialists saying you can't
have black coffee, only coffee without milk, and OTOH most people just
saying what they've always said, thinking that PC is all about idiots
being intolerant.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I fought fire with fire which is the only way to do it. Sweet reason is
> for symposiums in Heaven, not for the realities of this earth.
>

No Ed it is not the only way to do it. That is my entire point. I have not
fought fire with fire once. It is a silly metaphor if you actually think
about it. I prefer to fight ignorance although I prefer not to use the
fighting metaphor at all. Its not that I'm being PC but rather I have found
that confrontational posturing does not lead to understanding by both sides.

> I know liberals like I know the back of my hand because I was one myself
> in my misspent youth. I fight the way they fight, dirty and with no rules.
> I go for the jugular just like they do. I mostly just plain hate them,
> especially with regard to their position on the War in Iraq. To try to
> reason with a liberal is an exercise in futility.
>

Ed, believe me when I say that I probably embrace every position that you
hate. I do not, however, fight dirty and go for the jugular. The problem
with your approach, as I said earlier, is that most people's response to
being attacked is to defend. It all ends up getting personal very quickly.
Liberal form opinions about Conservatives and Conservatives form opinions
about Liberals. Then after a while they start to embrace those opinions and
repeat them as if they were facts. Things get said like the paragraphs above
which I quoted.

Reality is more complex then that. There are people out there who would
agree 100% with your opinions that you would find detestable and there are
people out there that would agree 100% with my liberal opinions that you
would be happy to have as friends.

As I have said before and as your posting and the posting of others
sometimes reflects, there is not enough serious thinking going on. In trying
to understand what are essentially complex issues, people are grasping for
quick "sound byte" style answers.

You can say you hate liberals but I think you are a smart enough person to
know that statement for the lie that it is. There are certain behaviors that
you may hate but I don't really believe that you hate someone for holding an
opinion that you disagree with. BTW I know that there are exceptions to what
I've said so please don't tell me about some radical fringe on either the
left or right, whose ideas you hate, and whose ideas I would hate too. We
both know those counter-examples exist. I'm talking about the average poster
you are likely to meet here, or the average liberal like me.

If I have you pegged wrong and you really do hate me and people like me for
my ideas then my earlier designation of you as intolerant would be fitting.
I've come to think that that is not the case, however.

Regards,
Jeff

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I fought fire with fire which is the only way to do it. Sweet reason is
>> for symposiums in Heaven, not for the realities of this earth.
>>
>
> No Ed it is not the only way to do it. That is my entire point. I have not
> fought fire with fire once. It is a silly metaphor if you actually think
> about it. I prefer to fight ignorance although I prefer not to use the
> fighting metaphor at all. Its not that I'm being PC but rather I have
> found that confrontational posturing does not lead to understanding by
> both sides.

I am strictly in a confrontational mood when confronted with liberals. I
have had it up to high heaven with their confounded views. All the major
media and institutions of higer education are full of their nonsense. And
when one of them is spouting off on a newsgroup devoted to recumbent
cycling, I go into orbit.

>> I know liberals like I know the back of my hand because I was one myself
>> in my misspent youth. I fight the way they fight, dirty and with no
>> rules. I go for the jugular just like they do. I mostly just plain hate
>> them, especially with regard to their position on the War in Iraq. To try
>> to reason with a liberal is an exercise in futility.
>>
>
> Ed, believe me when I say that I probably embrace every position that you
> hate. I do not, however, fight dirty and go for the jugular. The problem
> with your approach, as I said earlier, is that most people's response to
> being attacked is to defend. It all ends up getting personal very quickly.
> Liberal form opinions about Conservatives and Conservatives form opinions
> about Liberals. Then after a while they start to embrace those opinions
> and repeat them as if they were facts. Things get said like the paragraphs
> above which I quoted.
>
> Reality is more complex then that. There are people out there who would
> agree 100% with your opinions that you would find detestable and there are
> people out there that would agree 100% with my liberal opinions that you
> would be happy to have as friends.

It goes without saying that I hate their views, not they themselves (some
exceptions of course). However, if truth be told, I do not like anybody
much. We humans are just not very likable. We are essentially killer apes
and we go about the world with murder in our dark hearts.

> As I have said before and as your posting and the posting of others
> sometimes reflects, there is not enough serious thinking going on. In
> trying to understand what are essentially complex issues, people are
> grasping for quick "sound byte" style answers.

Newsgroups are not the place for serious thinking. Newsgroups are the place
for spouting off. When liberals spout off, then I spout off too. Nobody here
except us geysers going off. Kind of like Old Faithful at Yellowstone,
inevitable and predictable.

> You can say you hate liberals but I think you are a smart enough person to
> know that statement for the lie that it is. There are certain behaviors
> that you may hate but I don't really believe that you hate someone for
> holding an opinion that you disagree with. BTW I know that there are
> exceptions to what I've said so please don't tell me about some radical
> fringe on either the left or right, whose ideas you hate, and whose ideas
> I would hate too. We both know those counter-examples exist. I'm talking
> about the average poster you are likely to meet here, or the average
> liberal like me.

There are no average posters either here or anywhere else. Every individual
is a special case. And I do hate some for their views, especially where the
defense and security of the US is concerned. Do I hate Michael Moore? You
bet I do! I think he is a treasonous pig of a white man who has no brain.
May the Devil take him!

> If I have you pegged wrong and you really do hate me and people like me
> for my ideas then my earlier designation of you as intolerant would be
> fitting. I've come to think that that is not the case, however.

I am not in favor of tolerance as being good in and of itself. In fact, I am
quite in favor of intolerance when it comes to any number of things. Only
liberals use a word like tolerance and think it is universally good and use
a word like bigot and think it is universally bad. I am not tolerant of
Islam and I dislike the Arabs - at least for the present. This could change
if and when they start behaving like civilized creatures and reform their
abominable religion.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Jeff Grippe]

In Conclusion: (back to my style of posting)

Well it appears we have some very fundamental disagreements (I know. I can
hear some of you telling me that it must have been a blinding flash of the
obvious.)

This ernest liberal clod chooses to take your words at face value (sorry
about the third person but it was the best way to work in the descriptive
language). I am sorry for you yet elated that I do not live in the same
world as you do.

I prefer my delusions to yours any day (they are both delusions, however).

So for me there is nothing left to say after your last post. But I'll try to
end on topic.

I wish you many happy miles on the pedal powered vehicle of your choice.
Don't hit gravel or brake a leg!

Jeff

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In Conclusion: (back to my style of posting)
[...]

"Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow." -- From Romeo and
Juliet (II, ii, 185)

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota