A couple of things. I hope some of you read the speech of Lt Tim Collins of the Irish Guards (I think) it was one of the best speechs I have ever seen full of compassion and spirit.
I am going to stick my head above the parapet. Eeny I do not know Byron personally only thru this forum but he strikes me as an honourable man who would not hand over a hollow apology. It looked like a genuine apology to me. I know the USA and Britian speak the same lanugage but I sometimes wonder if we communicate at all. I hope you accept his apology in the spirit it was given.
The British war correspondents deserve a medal for the calm matter of fact way they are delivering the facts.
hell bent on war
Good heavens, eeey....I hope you don't play chess. I play minimally [in both frequency and skill], yet even at the bare minimum, I know how to think ahead a number of moves! Simplistic conclusion on your part to presume that I meant "World Trade Center gets hit......George W. Bush's popularity rating skyrockets." He lost the election. His Dad left an intended conquest unresolved, Saddam never eliminated. Sanctions by the U.S. continued. To complete what his Daddy started, on the premise of eliminating terrorism [fear of same maximally heightened by the W.T.C. destruction] ~ being the "caring, concerned hero" in the aftermath of the the W.T.C. [did you not notice the popularity polls immediately following and the newfound resolve of the people, to "stand behind our President," "regardless of the election" specifically cited, against the newfound enemy?]; instituting the Department of Homeland Security to "save" us all from the Middle Eastern peoples [the D.H.S. now destroying all manner of civil rights by the minute] ~ many agendas "accomplished" in one, fell swoop. Of course, he was with the elementary school children ~ in safety away from the White House, just as he immediately took to Camp David at the onset of this war, just as his father did with the onset of Desert Storm. Interesting family tradition ~ "we send young people to war and death, and we go on vacation." Increase the complexity of your thinking process, and you may be able to follow some logic as to how world politics work.
What did I call Charlie Daniels, Linda? I called him nothing. If something I said confused you in that regard, please point it out, so I can rephrase it. I have nothing against Charlie Daniels ~ and whatever his opinion is, it's his opinion, but not mine. I did not realize that you were asking me to confirm or deny any connection between him and Leonard. I know that Leonard admires George Jones's music. As far as Charlie goes, I'm unaware of what their connection was/is and couldn't have confirmed/denied anything.
As to popularity on this Forum, or elsewhere, as you may or may not recall, it initially appeared that I stood alone here in my peace stance. I didn't care if I was alone, either....still don't. It's only encouraging to me in a humanitarian sense that others feel that peace must be sought by means other than war.
Over the past number of days, "Oh beautiful for spacious skies......[through to the end]" has played over and over in my head. It's the country I grew up loving. It's the country I long to love. It's the country, many parts of which I still love. This administration I do not love. Other war-mongering, greed- and power-based administrations I do not love. Politics, greed, power, and Western Expansionism being what they are....this is not restricted to Bush. However, I find him the most distasteful to date, in many, many ways for many, many reasons.
eeey ~ I didn't know what factitious meant until I read Byron's definition from the dictionary. I liked the "fact" portion of it, contrasting it to "fict"itious, which of course, I do know. The "itious" of factitious still gave me concern, but I thought that perhaps with "fact" being the root of the word, it just meant one supported by more factual information, and I took your acceptance to be sincere. However, with the definition, I am now hoping that you didn't know the true meaning of the word and misused it. From Byron's first apology and on, it couldn't be any clearer that it was genuine, and I am stunned by responses to him in regard to it. Byron and I are clearly in a different space at this time. He's offering you apologies for how you felt according to what he said. An apology must be heartfelt by me, as well, or I'm not giving it, and at this point, I'm not concerned with how you're feeling in regard to anything I've said.
Regarding my lengthy response to you earlier, please keep in mind that you said nothing of import, only a bunch of immature, "name calling"-type gestures. For me to outline in detail what you are doing was a "whittling" well worth my time. You never know when someone might recognize some truth about themselves.
In my opinion, you were indeed rounding up people, assigning them to their positions....and I did not see it as a joke. Of course, you lack the power to act on any impulses you may have, but your posts would suggest you consider us as worthless and expendable as some notable figures in the past have others. It was an excellent analogy that Byron drew, but has withdrawn due to your hurt feelings.
What did I call Charlie Daniels, Linda? I called him nothing. If something I said confused you in that regard, please point it out, so I can rephrase it. I have nothing against Charlie Daniels ~ and whatever his opinion is, it's his opinion, but not mine. I did not realize that you were asking me to confirm or deny any connection between him and Leonard. I know that Leonard admires George Jones's music. As far as Charlie goes, I'm unaware of what their connection was/is and couldn't have confirmed/denied anything.
As to popularity on this Forum, or elsewhere, as you may or may not recall, it initially appeared that I stood alone here in my peace stance. I didn't care if I was alone, either....still don't. It's only encouraging to me in a humanitarian sense that others feel that peace must be sought by means other than war.
Over the past number of days, "Oh beautiful for spacious skies......[through to the end]" has played over and over in my head. It's the country I grew up loving. It's the country I long to love. It's the country, many parts of which I still love. This administration I do not love. Other war-mongering, greed- and power-based administrations I do not love. Politics, greed, power, and Western Expansionism being what they are....this is not restricted to Bush. However, I find him the most distasteful to date, in many, many ways for many, many reasons.
eeey ~ I didn't know what factitious meant until I read Byron's definition from the dictionary. I liked the "fact" portion of it, contrasting it to "fict"itious, which of course, I do know. The "itious" of factitious still gave me concern, but I thought that perhaps with "fact" being the root of the word, it just meant one supported by more factual information, and I took your acceptance to be sincere. However, with the definition, I am now hoping that you didn't know the true meaning of the word and misused it. From Byron's first apology and on, it couldn't be any clearer that it was genuine, and I am stunned by responses to him in regard to it. Byron and I are clearly in a different space at this time. He's offering you apologies for how you felt according to what he said. An apology must be heartfelt by me, as well, or I'm not giving it, and at this point, I'm not concerned with how you're feeling in regard to anything I've said.
Regarding my lengthy response to you earlier, please keep in mind that you said nothing of import, only a bunch of immature, "name calling"-type gestures. For me to outline in detail what you are doing was a "whittling" well worth my time. You never know when someone might recognize some truth about themselves.
In my opinion, you were indeed rounding up people, assigning them to their positions....and I did not see it as a joke. Of course, you lack the power to act on any impulses you may have, but your posts would suggest you consider us as worthless and expendable as some notable figures in the past have others. It was an excellent analogy that Byron drew, but has withdrawn due to your hurt feelings.
Last edited by lizzytysh on Sat Mar 22, 2003 12:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Byron ~
"I too am saddend at this loss of life. They were only here for one life each and already they have gone from us. " The italicized portion of what you said really takes it to the level that we need to consider our losses, particularly "they were only here for one life each." They are not just numbers.
I'm impressed by your description of the reporting you're hearing there. Here, even on NPR, they either use their "sad" voices, a certainly quality that comes through as their "training" ~ or, conversely, they are talking about the various maneuvers and progress with a kind of excitement resembling the reporting of a sports event. Perhaps what you're hearing and referring to as vitriolic.
G..d Bless everyone.
~ Elizabeth
"I too am saddend at this loss of life. They were only here for one life each and already they have gone from us. " The italicized portion of what you said really takes it to the level that we need to consider our losses, particularly "they were only here for one life each." They are not just numbers.
I'm impressed by your description of the reporting you're hearing there. Here, even on NPR, they either use their "sad" voices, a certainly quality that comes through as their "training" ~ or, conversely, they are talking about the various maneuvers and progress with a kind of excitement resembling the reporting of a sports event. Perhaps what you're hearing and referring to as vitriolic.
G..d Bless everyone.
~ Elizabeth
Last edited by lizzytysh on Sat Mar 22, 2003 12:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Linda ~
I don't know how Leonard feels about this war, but his understated, diplomatic style does not go hand-in-hand with speaking out as Charlie Daniels is doing. Leonard also has origins in that part of the world. Leonard needs to be cautious with what he does and what he says, for a number of reasons, not the least of which could be the government.
From what I've gathered, according to things said regarding Leonard, he could be in favour of what's happening. However, I really don't expect [in either anticipation or expectation] to be hearing from him, other than through his music and poetry, and some well-thought-out, cautious replies to questions foisted upon him.
~ Lizzytysh
I don't know how Leonard feels about this war, but his understated, diplomatic style does not go hand-in-hand with speaking out as Charlie Daniels is doing. Leonard also has origins in that part of the world. Leonard needs to be cautious with what he does and what he says, for a number of reasons, not the least of which could be the government.
From what I've gathered, according to things said regarding Leonard, he could be in favour of what's happening. However, I really don't expect [in either anticipation or expectation] to be hearing from him, other than through his music and poetry, and some well-thought-out, cautious replies to questions foisted upon him.
~ Lizzytysh
Lizzytysh,
Stop being a martyr.
You never stood alone here in your peace stance. All you have to do is announce your position on any subject and a tsunami of sycophancy washes over the Board.
eeey
Stop being a martyr.
You never stood alone here in your peace stance. All you have to do is announce your position on any subject and a tsunami of sycophancy washes over the Board.
eeey
Last edited by eeey on Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Linda ~
Your comment "Would be great to hear LC speak out like that. I would love it!!" had definite overtones of what your presumption [or at least preference!] of what his position would be. I can't imagine your responding, "I love it!!" if he commented and his comments were along the lines of what our "peace-position" ones here have been.
I don't wait to be asked by you what my opinion is, much less whether you're interested in it. If I have one and want to express it, it's "all systems go."
I'm amazed at your certainty regarding the vulnerability of certain heritages of people with our government....and your presumption that Leonard has or would have nothing to fear.
~ Lizzytysh
Your comment "Would be great to hear LC speak out like that. I would love it!!" had definite overtones of what your presumption [or at least preference!] of what his position would be. I can't imagine your responding, "I love it!!" if he commented and his comments were along the lines of what our "peace-position" ones here have been.
I don't wait to be asked by you what my opinion is, much less whether you're interested in it. If I have one and want to express it, it's "all systems go."
I'm amazed at your certainty regarding the vulnerability of certain heritages of people with our government....and your presumption that Leonard has or would have nothing to fear.
~ Lizzytysh
eeey~
"Martyr"
? In the beginning here, I specifically commented that I didn't care whether I stood alone. A martyr would have to endure something to be considered such, and I've incurred nothing even remotely close to suggest martyrdom. I made a statement very early on, and as time went on, others expressed their own views.
Maybe you really aren't understanding the meaning of the words you're inflammatorily using ~ see previous references to hyperbole. [Unfortunately, it also appears that you really did mean to use "factitious," per its literal meaning ~ unbelievable.] Is it your intention to insult the intelligence of everyone on this Forum? Apparently, you're continuing to miss the individuality of and within the thinking of those commenting. It has nothing to do with me as a person. It has to do with the issue, eeey. The issue. Not the personality. You're very narrow in your thinking, it seems, and unable to get beyond personality and into issues....and to recognize the difference. You're again highlighting the weakness of your position. This is not about me.
~ Lizzytysh
Just realized that the root of factitious is possibly fac rather than fact, and the addition is titious not itious. I thought of the word facsimile, as in "similar, but not really." So, perhaps the root is fac and the t makes it be what it is, pure and simple, and the additions alter it. [Then, there's factual.] Or, the ending really is itious, which alters, as in "similar to" the word it's attached to. Like fictitious being "similar to fiction." How many times have I regretted not taking Latin when I had the chance in high school.
"Martyr"
? In the beginning here, I specifically commented that I didn't care whether I stood alone. A martyr would have to endure something to be considered such, and I've incurred nothing even remotely close to suggest martyrdom. I made a statement very early on, and as time went on, others expressed their own views. Maybe you really aren't understanding the meaning of the words you're inflammatorily using ~ see previous references to hyperbole. [Unfortunately, it also appears that you really did mean to use "factitious," per its literal meaning ~ unbelievable.] Is it your intention to insult the intelligence of everyone on this Forum? Apparently, you're continuing to miss the individuality of and within the thinking of those commenting. It has nothing to do with me as a person. It has to do with the issue, eeey. The issue. Not the personality. You're very narrow in your thinking, it seems, and unable to get beyond personality and into issues....and to recognize the difference. You're again highlighting the weakness of your position. This is not about me.
~ Lizzytysh
Just realized that the root of factitious is possibly fac rather than fact, and the addition is titious not itious. I thought of the word facsimile, as in "similar, but not really." So, perhaps the root is fac and the t makes it be what it is, pure and simple, and the additions alter it. [Then, there's factual.] Or, the ending really is itious, which alters, as in "similar to" the word it's attached to. Like fictitious being "similar to fiction." How many times have I regretted not taking Latin when I had the chance in high school.
Last edited by lizzytysh on Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
Correct me if I am wrong Lizzytysh. You are saying LC would have to fear our govenment if he spoke out against the war or any thing else he felt like speaking out against. I don't believe that. Unless we would decide to send him back to Canada now that I woud protest!!
I don't know what his opinion is but I would bet it would make sense whether I agree or not. I am not only influenced by people I agree with. His wisdom is amazing. I just hope he is busy writing that book
I don't know what his opinion is but I would bet it would make sense whether I agree or not. I am not only influenced by people I agree with. His wisdom is amazing. I just hope he is busy writing that book
Linda
eeey ~
I am saying that because Leonard is Jewish there is cause for concern were he to speak out and either be misinterpreted, or interpreted correctly, as the case may be. Orange code here is now all but synonymous with "knee-jerk paranoid" code. The government is already rounding up Iraqis here, for interviewing and detainment.....detaining those illegally here, but interviewing the rest, with the right to detain, if "suspicious." People are free to submit to interviewing voluntarily, as well, to justify their presence here and to have their trustworthiness assessed by the FBI. It doesn't take much imagination to see the potentials there.
Some of Leonard's songs could be interpreted however the government wishes. Remember also that he went to Cuba during the Bay of Pigs time. Remember that John Lennon was assassinated....Martin Luther King, Jr......President Kennedy.....Senator Kennedy. What's in common there? Peaceful resolutions and belief in the "small" and common people and popularity with the "masses" and the ability to "organize" in the sense of affecting and potentially mobilizing people's thinking and actions....."Give peace a chance" remains [almost 1/4 century later] a refrain used to object to the government's actions. Simply singing the first 4 words, "All we are saaaaayiiiiiiing....." and anyone will know what's to follow and more than likely that the singer subscribes to it. You really aren't aware, I'm guessing, of some of the historical tactics of this government. Middle-eastern, Jewish are amongst other "vulnerability of heritages" here ~ American Indian and Negro are two others.
And Linda, it seems the above comment I made to eeey applies to you, as well, or you certainly wouldn't have refuted my comment regarding the government and Leonard. So far, so good, and I thank G..d for that.
~ Lizzytysh
I am saying that because Leonard is Jewish there is cause for concern were he to speak out and either be misinterpreted, or interpreted correctly, as the case may be. Orange code here is now all but synonymous with "knee-jerk paranoid" code. The government is already rounding up Iraqis here, for interviewing and detainment.....detaining those illegally here, but interviewing the rest, with the right to detain, if "suspicious." People are free to submit to interviewing voluntarily, as well, to justify their presence here and to have their trustworthiness assessed by the FBI. It doesn't take much imagination to see the potentials there.
Some of Leonard's songs could be interpreted however the government wishes. Remember also that he went to Cuba during the Bay of Pigs time. Remember that John Lennon was assassinated....Martin Luther King, Jr......President Kennedy.....Senator Kennedy. What's in common there? Peaceful resolutions and belief in the "small" and common people and popularity with the "masses" and the ability to "organize" in the sense of affecting and potentially mobilizing people's thinking and actions....."Give peace a chance" remains [almost 1/4 century later] a refrain used to object to the government's actions. Simply singing the first 4 words, "All we are saaaaayiiiiiiing....." and anyone will know what's to follow and more than likely that the singer subscribes to it. You really aren't aware, I'm guessing, of some of the historical tactics of this government. Middle-eastern, Jewish are amongst other "vulnerability of heritages" here ~ American Indian and Negro are two others.
And Linda, it seems the above comment I made to eeey applies to you, as well, or you certainly wouldn't have refuted my comment regarding the government and Leonard. So far, so good, and I thank G..d for that.
~ Lizzytysh
Very interesting that you would presume Leonard's position [even if you did not agree] would make sense, yet have deemed that none of the other disagreeing opinions here make sense. Interesting.
I will always agree on Leonard's wisdom, yet it appears that you have the implicit assumption that he would agree when you say that, and are perhaps giving lip service to the notion "whether I agree or not."
Yes, as I've just explained to eeey, that's exactly what I feel.....and I rightfully guessed that my comments to her apply to you, as well. The potential for harm would be there.....and would remain inherently in the shadows, but only with issues that directly concern the government.
I will always agree on Leonard's wisdom, yet it appears that you have the implicit assumption that he would agree when you say that, and are perhaps giving lip service to the notion "whether I agree or not."
Yes, as I've just explained to eeey, that's exactly what I feel.....and I rightfully guessed that my comments to her apply to you, as well. The potential for harm would be there.....and would remain inherently in the shadows, but only with issues that directly concern the government.