Terrorists on ROFF?
 

rdean writes:
That's what you get for buying a mower with a Briggstein and
Strattonberg engine...next time, get a Toroah, perhaps?

Nu? Or used?
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
When the dawn came up like thunder

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

rdean writes:
That's what you get for buying a mower with a Briggstein and
Strattonberg engine...next time, get a Toroah, perhaps?

Nu? Or used?
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
When the dawn came up like thunder

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:04:37 GMT, "slenon"
wrote:

rdean writes:
That's what you get for buying a mower with a Briggstein and
Strattonberg engine...next time, get a Toroah, perhaps?

Nu? Or used?

What do I care? But I can get you such a deal, bubee!

TC,
R

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

rdean writes:
What do I care? But I can get you such a deal, bubee

A deal, I can enjoy. But do you deliver? It's October now, I should wait,
the grass will maybe stop growing. That which didn't blow away!

We'll talk, have a glass tea, some gefilte trout.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
When the dawn came up like thunder

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:09:39 +0100, "riverman" wrote:

(Warning; this took on a definate soapbox tone.)

And on that same note of warning, my reply is unedited and written as I
could, so pardon any editorial gaffs.

(snip for brevity)

Similarly to your post, RD, let me read carefully and digest your reply and
get back to you later tonight. Thanks for the reply, and my initial thought
is that we will most likely come to a clearer agreement of which points we
agree to disagree on.

TL
--riverman

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:09:39 +0100, "riverman" wrote:

(Warning; this took on a definate soapbox tone.)

And on that same note of warning, my reply is unedited and written as I
could, so pardon any editorial gaffs.

(snip for brevity)

Similarly to your post, RD, let me read carefully and digest your reply and
get back to you later tonight. Thanks for the reply, and my initial thought
is that we will most likely come to a clearer agreement of which points we
agree to disagree on.

TL
--riverman

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Hey RD:
Rather than continue the 'insert comment here' type of response, which after
this point inevitably cuts up conversations into such tiny snippets that the
forest gets lost in the trees, let me ask a couple of leading questions, and
then give you a summary of where I think we stand.

But before that, I have to say that I do agree with several things you said:
I agree that Americans generally get their info and form their opinions from
news programs (with their prepackaged conclusions that eliminate the need
for the consumer to think), or else just leap to conclusions based on what
'facts' they have managed to memorize in order to sound more informed,
without really assessing the validity or relevance of those facts. I also
hadn't considered the overall benefit to the youth of our society of the
discipline that some time in the military might give them, so no matter what
the ill effects are, there is that potential side-benefit of a draft (if one
ever materializes). I also agree that it is very difficult to really assess
the 'general feeling' in other countries, as there are a lot of mitigating
factors which make it hard to even determine what the 'general feeling'
means, let alone determine the effects of it.

My first question: you've painted a pretty cohesive picture of a type of
lifestyle in America where any effects, real or imagined, of outside events
really has no impact, at least of the current events. Can you give me an
example of some sort of outside event that WOULD have an effect on the
day-to-day life of someone? I'd be interested in something less than a
cataclysmic event like WW3. I ask this because its always possible for
someone to deny that outside events really effect anything, and it would be
important to know that you do believe the potential exists for effects to
actually be felt. It also would help to know what personal/public level you
consider to be an effect: for example, if something caused increase in
unemployment and a change in the GDP, but you didn't lose a job or have your
spending impacted, would that count? Or the reverse: if something had no
wide-ranging effect on employment rates or the Prime Lending rate, but it
forced one of your interests to fold, would that count?

My second question: how important is international cooperation (and you're
welcome, even encouraged, to define that) to the well-being of America and
Americans. The second part ("...and Americans") sort of overlaps the first
question, but go ahead and expand on that as you see fit. I ask this
question because its important to know if you think our relationship with
other countries is really something to be concerned about, and at what
level. If you really don't think it matters, then any discussion about
whether or not our relationships are suffering is moot.

My last question: how important to any of what we are talking about (and you
are welcome, even encouraged, to define THAT) is the role of Bush? I ask
this because if you feel "one president or another, it doesn't matter", then
our discussion will take an entirely different meaning than if you feel that
he is cental and essential to everything that is happening (or not
happening, as it may be).

I will easily admit that politics, economics and psychology all have one
major thing in common: there is so much going on at so many levels that ANY
conclusion is pretty easy to draw and support. That makes discussions in
these realms greatly based on faith (in some sort of cohesive set of
underlying principles), good faith (that neither debating party is just
ripping things apart for the fun of it), and often consensus is confused for
some sort of real assessment of the validity of one point of view over
another (might makes right, or more accurately; majority rules).

That being said, however, I admit that no matter what, we will almost
certainly survive and many in the US may not even see a change. Countries
have survived a lot more anti-national sentiment than the US may currently
be experiencing (Zimbabwe comes to mind), and the US has survived much worse
leadership than either Clinton or Bush has provided (depending on your POV).
However, I hate to think of the US in the same sort of global scowl as
Mugabe has put Zim into, And global events have also changed countries
irrevocably, so turning a blind eye to world events isn't always going to
assure that the status quo is maintained. In our own lifetimes, we have seen
the world Superpowers be rearranged, which is merely an interesting sideline
to some Americans but catastrophic to several million Russians and several
dozen economies. I wonder how many Russians never saw it coming. With the
current focus on terroism and the wars, I cannot imagine that anyone could
deny that the world political climate is not essentially different today
than it was 4 years ago, or that the US has no active role in that change. I
could imagine, however, that people could disagree on the effects of that
change, and to me; its a lot like Nero fiddling while Rome undeniably burns.
YMMV.

Anyway, I'll let you ponder and I look forward to your reply.

--riverman

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Hey RD:
Rather than continue the 'insert comment here' type of response, which after
this point inevitably cuts up conversations into such tiny snippets that the
forest gets lost in the trees, let me ask a couple of leading questions, and
then give you a summary of where I think we stand.

But before that, I have to say that I do agree with several things you said:
I agree that Americans generally get their info and form their opinions from
news programs (with their prepackaged conclusions that eliminate the need
for the consumer to think), or else just leap to conclusions based on what
'facts' they have managed to memorize in order to sound more informed,
without really assessing the validity or relevance of those facts. I also
hadn't considered the overall benefit to the youth of our society of the
discipline that some time in the military might give them, so no matter what
the ill effects are, there is that potential side-benefit of a draft (if one
ever materializes). I also agree that it is very difficult to really assess
the 'general feeling' in other countries, as there are a lot of mitigating
factors which make it hard to even determine what the 'general feeling'
means, let alone determine the effects of it.

My first question: you've painted a pretty cohesive picture of a type of
lifestyle in America where any effects, real or imagined, of outside events
really has no impact, at least of the current events. Can you give me an
example of some sort of outside event that WOULD have an effect on the
day-to-day life of someone? I'd be interested in something less than a
cataclysmic event like WW3. I ask this because its always possible for
someone to deny that outside events really effect anything, and it would be
important to know that you do believe the potential exists for effects to
actually be felt. It also would help to know what personal/public level you
consider to be an effect: for example, if something caused increase in
unemployment and a change in the GDP, but you didn't lose a job or have your
spending impacted, would that count? Or the reverse: if something had no
wide-ranging effect on employment rates or the Prime Lending rate, but it
forced one of your interests to fold, would that count?

My second question: how important is international cooperation (and you're
welcome, even encouraged, to define that) to the well-being of America and
Americans. The second part ("...and Americans") sort of overlaps the first
question, but go ahead and expand on that as you see fit. I ask this
question because its important to know if you think our relationship with
other countries is really something to be concerned about, and at what
level. If you really don't think it matters, then any discussion about
whether or not our relationships are suffering is moot.

My last question: how important to any of what we are talking about (and you
are welcome, even encouraged, to define THAT) is the role of Bush? I ask
this because if you feel "one president or another, it doesn't matter", then
our discussion will take an entirely different meaning than if you feel that
he is cental and essential to everything that is happening (or not
happening, as it may be).

I will easily admit that politics, economics and psychology all have one
major thing in common: there is so much going on at so many levels that ANY
conclusion is pretty easy to draw and support. That makes discussions in
these realms greatly based on faith (in some sort of cohesive set of
underlying principles), good faith (that neither debating party is just
ripping things apart for the fun of it), and often consensus is confused for
some sort of real assessment of the validity of one point of view over
another (might makes right, or more accurately; majority rules).

That being said, however, I admit that no matter what, we will almost
certainly survive and many in the US may not even see a change. Countries
have survived a lot more anti-national sentiment than the US may currently
be experiencing (Zimbabwe comes to mind), and the US has survived much worse
leadership than either Clinton or Bush has provided (depending on your POV).
However, I hate to think of the US in the same sort of global scowl as
Mugabe has put Zim into, And global events have also changed countries
irrevocably, so turning a blind eye to world events isn't always going to
assure that the status quo is maintained. In our own lifetimes, we have seen
the world Superpowers be rearranged, which is merely an interesting sideline
to some Americans but catastrophic to several million Russians and several
dozen economies. I wonder how many Russians never saw it coming. With the
current focus on terroism and the wars, I cannot imagine that anyone could
deny that the world political climate is not essentially different today
than it was 4 years ago, or that the US has no active role in that change. I
could imagine, however, that people could disagree on the effects of that
change, and to me; its a lot like Nero fiddling while Rome undeniably burns.
YMMV.

Anyway, I'll let you ponder and I look forward to your reply.

--riverman

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Hey RD:
Rather than continue the 'insert comment here' type of response, which after
this point inevitably cuts up conversations into such tiny snippets that the
forest gets lost in the trees, let me ask a couple of leading questions, and
then give you a summary of where I think we stand.

But before that, I have to say that I do agree with several things you said:
I agree that Americans generally get their info and form their opinions from
news programs (with their prepackaged conclusions that eliminate the need
for the consumer to think), or else just leap to conclusions based on what
'facts' they have managed to memorize in order to sound more informed,
without really assessing the validity or relevance of those facts. I also
hadn't considered the overall benefit to the youth of our society of the
discipline that some time in the military might give them, so no matter what
the ill effects are, there is that potential side-benefit of a draft (if one
ever materializes). I also agree that it is very difficult to really assess
the 'general feeling' in other countries, as there are a lot of mitigating
factors which make it hard to even determine what the 'general feeling'
means, let alone determine the effects of it.

My first question: you've painted a pretty cohesive picture of a type of
lifestyle in America where any effects, real or imagined, of outside events
really has no impact, at least of the current events. Can you give me an
example of some sort of outside event that WOULD have an effect on the
day-to-day life of someone? I'd be interested in something less than a
cataclysmic event like WW3. I ask this because its always possible for
someone to deny that outside events really effect anything, and it would be
important to know that you do believe the potential exists for effects to
actually be felt. It also would help to know what personal/public level you
consider to be an effect: for example, if something caused increase in
unemployment and a change in the GDP, but you didn't lose a job or have your
spending impacted, would that count? Or the reverse: if something had no
wide-ranging effect on employment rates or the Prime Lending rate, but it
forced one of your interests to fold, would that count?

My second question: how important is international cooperation (and you're
welcome, even encouraged, to define that) to the well-being of America and
Americans. The second part ("...and Americans") sort of overlaps the first
question, but go ahead and expand on that as you see fit. I ask this
question because its important to know if you think our relationship with
other countries is really something to be concerned about, and at what
level. If you really don't think it matters, then any discussion about
whether or not our relationships are suffering is moot.

My last question: how important to any of what we are talking about (and you
are welcome, even encouraged, to define THAT) is the role of Bush? I ask
this because if you feel "one president or another, it doesn't matter", then
our discussion will take an entirely different meaning than if you feel that
he is cental and essential to everything that is happening (or not
happening, as it may be).

I will easily admit that politics, economics and psychology all have one
major thing in common: there is so much going on at so many levels that ANY
conclusion is pretty easy to draw and support. That makes discussions in
these realms greatly based on faith (in some sort of cohesive set of
underlying principles), good faith (that neither debating party is just
ripping things apart for the fun of it), and often consensus is confused for
some sort of real assessment of the validity of one point of view over
another (might makes right, or more accurately; majority rules).

That being said, however, I admit that no matter what, we will almost
certainly survive and many in the US may not even see a change. Countries
have survived a lot more anti-national sentiment than the US may currently
be experiencing (Zimbabwe comes to mind), and the US has survived much worse
leadership than either Clinton or Bush has provided (depending on your POV).
However, I hate to think of the US in the same sort of global scowl as
Mugabe has put Zim into, And global events have also changed countries
irrevocably, so turning a blind eye to world events isn't always going to
assure that the status quo is maintained. In our own lifetimes, we have seen
the world Superpowers be rearranged, which is merely an interesting sideline
to some Americans but catastrophic to several million Russians and several
dozen economies. I wonder how many Russians never saw it coming. With the
current focus on terroism and the wars, I cannot imagine that anyone could
deny that the world political climate is not essentially different today
than it was 4 years ago, or that the US has no active role in that change. I
could imagine, however, that people could disagree on the effects of that
change, and to me; its a lot like Nero fiddling while Rome undeniably burns.
YMMV.

Anyway, I'll let you ponder and I look forward to your reply.

--riverman

Terrorists on ROFF?