Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    re .0
    
    7) No.  My voter registration card says I'm a Republican, and 
       last time I checked, I was a woman.
    
    -  Paula

    
    -1 OK.
      How about the rest of the questions ??
    
    +David

    re .2
    
    Sorry, David, politics isn't something I can really get my teeth into.
    Call me shallow, but I have more to contribute on the topic of whether
    older women and younger men pair up because their sexual peaks match
    up ;^) 

  
    1.) What is politics?

war with civilicised rules.

    2.) Does recent history show a decline/incline of men in politics..?

the jury is still out

    3.) What was the arguement used to allow a "One woman,One
    Vote"ammendment..?

women would continue to disrupt horse racing unless we let them vote.

    4.) Does the future show an increase or decrease in male related
    issues??

see #2

    5.) Is President Bush the last Bastion(sp) of the old guard good
    old boys politics.?

what is a good old boy? is this related to the influence of the school tie in
political advancement?

    6.) Do you think President Bush was the best male canidate available..

for what? we aren't being ethnocentric are we?

    7.) Do you think most men lean towards Republican politics? And do
    most woman lean towards Democratic??(just asking)..

what is a Republican... or a Democrat...? most women round here are either 
Conservative, Labour, Liberal (or whatever they're called this week) or Green...
again this sounds horribly Americocentric to me for a transnational conference 
in a multiethnic society like ours...

	/. Ian .\

    wow, I knew the spellings and political parties were unpredictable over
    there but "civilicised"?
    
    ed

    re: .4 Ian
    
    What's a "GREEN" woman?
    An enquiring American wants to know.

    1.) What is politics?

    It is a game of power, personalities and control. Usually without
    physical violence.

    2.) Does recent history show a decline/incline of men in politics..?

    I agree with Ian, the jury is still out.

    3.) What was the arguement used to allow a "One woman,One
    Vote"ammendment..?

    They couldn't do any worse then men? I don't know. It was before my
    time.

    4.) Does the future show an increase or decrease in male related
    issues??

    The future shows an increase in people related issues rather then
    single sex issues. I wish people would stop considering abortion a
    woman's issue BTW. Statistically there may even be more males seriously
    affected then females. Seriously as in killed.

    5.) Is President Bush the last Bastion(sp) of the old guard good
    old boys politics.?

    Nope, but in the future "good old boys" will be of both sexes.

    6.) Do you think President Bush was the best male canidate available..

    No, but no better candidate was stupid enough to run.

    7.) Do you think most men lean towards Republican politics? And do
    most woman lean towards Democratic??(just asking)..

    I think most thinking people lean towards Republican (or conservative)
    politics and most selfish and unthinking people lean towards Democratic
    (or liberal) politics. :-)
    
    Seriously though, sex has little if any thing to do with it.

    			Alfred

    This is my view( only if you tilt your head a little to the side and
    sigh) on politics.
    
    Politics to me is a way people can shed the responsibility governing and
    turn it over to someone else. ( sounds like religion, does'nt it )
    
    At first glance, it's a great idea to have someone do the job of
    governing, till corruption sets in. Power, greed and self enrichment
    over the wishes of the population. 
    
    I know the statements are to simple and trite, but I wanted to get a
    simple message stated. I expect HOT and cold replies.  So be it.
    
    ```hy,,,

    re: .6
    	I used to live near a village called Ugley Green, and it had a club
    called the Ugley Green Women's Institute.
    
    	However unlikely that sounds it happens to be true, but apart from
    village names in Essex the usual use of "Green" with a capital "G" in
    Europe is to refer to a political party that bases its platform on
    environmental issues.

'civilicised' was a typo - I can't use DECspell because I use the DECwindows 
interface.

Green is a political party over here. (ecological extremism personified - it has
been said that if they ever got into power we'd be commuting to work on horse
back and living the life style of the 16th century). Personal prejudice apart
they are the only significant political party over here with a majority of 
members or the feminine gender.

/. Ian .\

Politics is an attempt to come out of a social situation with a 
perceived, personal gain and not a loss.

							--Gerry

    I think there are a couple areas where gender is relevant to politics.
    One is the "gender gap" -- differences in political views between men
    and women. The other is women as national leaders, and male responses
    to such.
    
    The gender gap is a real phenomenon, and it tends to follow expected
    lines. In the States, women are more pro-abortion and less pro-war, for
    example, then men. I was recently in England and saw reports of a
    similar gender gap there. This figures importantly in elections, as
    candidates male and female learn to appeal to the (majority) women
    voters. Most notable in 1990 was the large number of Democrats and
    especially Republicans reversing their traditionally anti-abortion
    stance. I will not be surprised if 1992 is the first time in a couple
    decades in which the Republican national platform *hedges* on abortion,
    instead of taking a strict anti-abortion stance.
    
    I'm less clear on trends with women as national leaders. Israel,
    Pakistan, Great Britain, the Phillipines, El Salvador, and India (all I
    can think of just now!) have had female heads-of-state... and I can't
    think of any systematic behavior displayed by the group. Israel, Great
    Britain and India all fought wars with women national leaders... but
    were they *responding* to provocation in each case? My recall of the
    history in India is especially dim. Perhaps there HAS been a trend
    toward forebearence??
    
    I seems clear to me that women are NOT the guarantee of world peace
    which the suffragettes promised in the early 1900s... but they *do*
    seem to lean in that direction.
    
    - Hoyt
    
    Oh yeah: Argentina. And the bulk of these women "inherited" the role
    after their husband/father, I notice.

    Politics was invented so that people who have no other talents 
    (politicians) can say they do something.  Or is it something which 
    is used by government so as to assure that they don't get anything 
    done while spending massive amounts of money.  I guess this shows some
    of my frustration with our (U.S.) political system.  I know it's the
    best around but if the government would spend half of the time and
    money on trying to make the world a better place as they do on playing
    politics, our government would be much more efficeint.  Oh well, back
    to reality.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike 

Mike,

Just as an exercise, try to construct a government that allows will of the
majority to be exercised, but protects the rights of minorities, as well as
protecting those rights that you feel are inherent, and yet is constructed of
fallible, greedy, craven, all too human people - oh, and also fixes those things
you don't like.

Our founding fathers were some smart cookies.

	-- Charles

    
    
    Quite embarrassing it must be for our own American protesters
    to see Iraqi's surrendering and then chanting "GEORGE BUSH!"
    "GEORGE BUSH!" I must say I had a grin a mile wide when I saw
    that!  And my pal, Mr. Simpson came to mind...8')  That must
    have sent him into a royal tizzy!  
    
    I can say I knew it all along - that we would have a decisive
    victory.  I can say I knew it all along - that we we're justified
    and doing the right thing.  *SOME* people will now hop on the
    bandwagon.....that's fine - (we'll just be nice and call em' 
    Democrats 8') and leave it at that.  I can toot my horn all I
    want, yes infriggin' deedy!  
    
    You see, if you leave a WAR up to the people who know how to 
    run one...you will win.  I think George Bush did a fantastic
    job.  Also Colin Powell and Swartzcopf did an excellent job
    as well.  Can you imagine Dukakis running this show?  Ha!!!! Ha!!!
    
    To all anti-war (I.E. ANTI-TROOPS/AMERICAN - YES YOU READ IT RIGHT).
    You can all rest easy...thanks to the strong, moral, just American
    leadership!
    
    Way to go, George!!!
    
    Bill
    
    
    

    
    > President Bush last of the old guard(paraphrased)
    
     Well it's braggin time..We men(not to exclude woman) have done a
    great job in the way we militarily and politically handled the
    Persian Gulf war( *ss kicking job)..Went home and some Stormin
    Norman spell it out..Reasonable men like pres Bush are great
    role models for young americans ..Justice mixed with mercy is
    what he displayed today when he announced a conditional cease
    fire..The old boys network panned(sp) out on this one..So much
    for all those prophets of doom  we have seen splattered accross
    the boob tube,blubbering about no blood for oil.Saw a sign in
    Kuwait that said "Blood for freedom"..Well I hope the knee jerk
    liberal community has a recipe for crow,cuz they got tons to
    swallow......
    
    David

    re .15
    
>    that!  And my pal, Mr. Simpson came to mind...8')  That must
>    have sent him into a royal tizzy!  
    
    Care to elaborate on this?  Because if you are implying what I think
    you're implying prepare yourself...

I'm one of those who opposed the war - I still oppose what was done but now the
war is over. Since that is what I wanted, why should I be upset? I'm glad the
war is over. I'm glad that Kuwait is liberated. I hope that we make sure that
Iraq in no way profits from it's illegal and immoral invasion of Kuwait.

I've always hoped these things and said them out loud. I'm glad our troops
suffered so few losses.

I simply wish we had found a way that had not killed so many people, that had
not reduced two countries infrastructures to the degree they have been. Would
sanctions have caused more or less suffering? We'll never know. It no longer
matters - for this conflict.

I rejoice with you that the war is over. I do not share your joy in "kicking
butt."

I hope we can find some moral way of taking power away from Saddam Hussein.

I hope this war results in less violence in the Middle East, it has that
potential. It also has the potential to spawn endless years of terrorism and
unrest. It all depends on the next few weeks.

	-- Charles

    
       I'm not "implying" anything.  You don't like George...and here
    they were, IRAQI soldiers, chanting "GEORGE BUSH"!!!  That 
    pretty much says it all.  I realize that you will come in
    on your high horse and declare that you were "not against"
    this action (nor for), just that you were being objective.
    So, don't get upset (i.e. "prepare yourself") - just because
    I can see right through you.
      
       You've tried to mask your real feelings and thoughts about
    this war and America (and American politics) under the guise
    of objectivism.  It comes out in a blaze of glory sometimes,
    (when you let your guard down ever so slightly).
    
       I will give you a fine example of you "letting your guard down".
    
 >"So, to your question I can legitimately say that yes, if Bush had
   closed his eyes to the whole affair, and had vetoed any UN action,
    then most certainly the problem would have come to an ultimately
    peaceful solution (in the sense that Iraq would have absorbed Kuwait
    and one day the issue would be an historical curiosity).  Now, that"
    
    You inadvertently ommitted a couple of "may haves" or "could haves".
    Here in this brief passage, your real thoughts are shown.  Here, 
    I feel, are your *actual* thoughts of what you think would have 
    happened.  And so, I can only conclude from this and some other
    passages, that you either a.) always like to appear to be correct/
    or b.)will accept that you might be "wrong" but always having been
    operating on some sort of higher, intellectual plane wherein
    grey areas and grey matter fuse in holy matrimony.     
         
       I can sense that you are miffed...and it doesn't suprise me
    one bit.  You will procede to enter your "I told you so's" in
    the following notes - but, what you REALLY "told" me was that
    you had hoped Bush would flop.  He didn't...he came out smelling
    like a rose.....and as I said before, enjoy the next 5 years of
    Republican representation of the USA.   
    

    re .19
    
>       I'm not "implying" anything.  You don't like George...and here
>    they were, IRAQI soldiers, chanting "GEORGE BUSH"!!!  That 
>    pretty much says it all.  I realize that you will come in
    
    If you don't want to be seen to imply things then you need to learn to
    phrase better.  And as for the second-rate Iraqi conscripts who have
    been thoroughly pounded by the coalition for six weeks and have
    belatedly realised the reality of their predicament - I think that
    if Donald Duck was president then they would quite happily have chanted
    that or anything else to show their delerium at finally being out of it. 
    I doubt very much that they have miraculously arrived at an
    understanding of Western democracy, just war and the United Nations
    Charter, with George Bush as the moral messiah leading us all into a
    new age.
    
>    on your high horse and declare that you were "not against"
>    this action (nor for), just that you were being objective.
>    So, don't get upset (i.e. "prepare yourself") - just because
>    I can see right through you.
    
    Given that I deliberately refrained from making a specific judgement I
    was fully prepared for you to distort my words, yet again, to show that
    I did.  And you haven't let me down.  Although how you can claim to see
    through anything since it is painfully obvious that you view the world
    at right-angles to the rest of us...
    
>       You've tried to mask your real feelings and thoughts about
>    this war and America (and American politics) under the guise
>    of objectivism.  It comes out in a blaze of glory sometimes,
>    (when you let your guard down ever so slightly).
    
    On the contrary, I used objective analysis to help sort out my thoughts
    and feelings.  As usual, you've got it the wrong way around.
    
>    You inadvertently ommitted a couple of "may haves" or "could haves".
    
    I notice you failed to resurrrect the question to which I replied.  I
    omitted nothing.  I merely showed how, given a particular scenario and
    certain parameters that certain things would have happened.  Nothing
    more, nothing less.
    
>    Here in this brief passage, your real thoughts are shown.  Here, 
>    I feel, are your *actual* thoughts of what you think would have 
>    happened.  And so, I can only conclude from this and some other
>    passages, that you either a.) always like to appear to be correct/
>    or b.)will accept that you might be "wrong" but always having been
>    operating on some sort of higher, intellectual plane wherein
>    grey areas and grey matter fuse in holy matrimony.     
    
    Your reference to my 'real thoughts' is puzzling.  That I postulated a
    sequence of events in no way implies that I did or would prefer that
    sequence of events.  Therefore, that particular instance in no way
    shows my 'real thoughts' any more than any of the other instances I
    proposed.
    
    So, do I always like to appear to be correct?  No more than anybody
    else.  Will I accept that I am wrong?  Certainly, given proof.
    
    Proof, by the way, I take to mean as logic and evidence, not rabid
    right-wing ravings:
    
>       I can sense that you are miffed...and it doesn't suprise me
>    one bit.  You will procede to enter your "I told you so's" in
>    the following notes - but, what you REALLY "told" me was that
>    you had hoped Bush would flop.  He didn't...he came out smelling
>    like a rose.....and as I said before, enjoy the next 5 years of
>    Republican representation of the USA.   
    
    Where did I say or imply that I hoped Bush would flop?  What I
    consistently said was that he had options that he chose not to take.  I
    said I had some doubts about the necessity of this war at this time
    (note that I wrote that before the evidence of renewed and expanded
    Iraqi atrocities).  At no time did I say or imply that I wanted Bush to
    'flop', if by that you mean that Saddam would achieve his geopolitical
    objectives.
    
    You and your fellows of like ilk did your damndest to lay into me
    simply because I suggested that the course Bush chose to take was not
    the only one, nor was it necessarily the best one.  I always left that
    option open, but I refused to jump on your bandwagon of "Heigh-ho! 
    Heigh-ho!  It's off to kick Iraqi ass we go!"
    
    Objectivity is not a shield so that one can avoid making decisions.  It
    is necessary if one is genuinely concerned about making the right
    decisions.  That you see fit to attack me for trying, in the face of
    great and unreasoning hostility, to be objective instead of slavish and
    sycophantic to your president speaks volumes to me and, it would appear 
    judging by the amount of mail I have received, to many others, about
    you.

    Is this what is meant by electronic warfare?  Hey guys haven'y you
    heard, there's a cease fire.  The think I'm thankful for is that we
    live in a country where we can express opposing viewpoints.  For the
    record I think President Bush handled the situation as well as it could
    have been handled.  He showed both stregnth and compassion.  I don't
    think he wanted to go to war, but I think that he was aware of things
    relative to the situation which we weren't (and probably never will
    be).  Anyway, I am thankful that it is over (hopefully) and I am
    saddened by the loss of life which occured on both sides.  I pray that
    these types of actions will not be necessary in the future. FWIW.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    

I don't think that I can put myself 100% into the camp of "opposition 
to the war."  The best articulation that I can manage is that I have 
this very strong feeling of "there's something wrong with this 
picture" in regard to America and this war.  The feeling has something 
to do with this country's core values, with governmental foreign 
policy, with our becoming entranced by our own technology, with the 
growing tendency toward squashing freedom of speech, and a general 
laziness of our people.

Can I elaborate?  No.  Am I a part of this?  Yes, certainly.  Do I 
have any answers?  No.

I just think that the victory and the "ease" of this war will delay 
some real soul searching that America has to do to get out of what I 
consider to be generally dehumanizing and destructive lifestyes.

America did some great work during this war.  Some great effects will 
come of it.  However, I'll celebrate the day when we can wave flags, 
produce T-Shirts, and apply red-white-and-blue bumper stickers for 
cleaning up the environment, eliminating racism and other ISMs, 
improving our educational systems, eliminating the homeless 
problem,...

It took me a few months to figure out that my anger at the country 
coming together to support the troops didn't have to do with support 
of the troops.  It had to do what I perceive as an unwillingness to 
come together and do some hard work on the tough issues that we face 
as a result of our industrialized and technology driven lifestyles.

The power generated by the country coming togther to support the 
troops was *awesome*.  Let's take that power and apply it to solutions 
that will save our planet, take care of our people, and improve the 
quality of our lives.  Let's apply it to something that will take 
longer than 8 months to achieve.  Let's apply it to something that 
doesn't involve war and "winning" at the expense of others.

...but to get something beautiful like that going, we would need a 
strong leader.  *sigh*

[I'm not sure if I'm making much sense.  I'm thinking out loud.]



							--Gerry

    
    like what? enforced homogeneity and redistribution of wealth?
    
    socialism and social engineering in the US?
    
    hegemony of a few "progressive intellectuals" because they
    "know whats best"?
    
    government by NPR babe?         

 Well, yes. But don't expect an admission. It just doesn't sound as good when
stripped down to the bare essentials.

 The Doctah

    
    
    I'd like to thank the moderators for letting my note stand.  In 
    this day and age, somehow things have altered in the sense that
    a minority thought will be left to stand, all in the name of
    valueing differences and not sensoring *their* right to free
    speech.  But when a rebuttal of the majority is presented, it
    somehow is often drowned out.
    
    for example:
    
    People will admire someone who goes against the mainstream!
    Today it is perfectly acceptable to say something like:  
    
 >Reagan on the other hand was a senile, incompetent, rambling ratbag who
  frequently expressed his belief that the Biblical end of the world was
  nigh.  He's the only world leader who has ever frightened me - and my
  country is a long-time ally of America'!  He had absolutely no
    
    But, if you jump to Reagan's defense - you run the risk of being
    deleted.  (By the way Mr. Simpson, you shouldn't drape yourself
    under your countries flag, it's one of the very things you have
    critized Americans of doing!)   I'm glad to know that you have 
    people writing you messages of encouragement.  Political correctness
    is quite the rage in current times.
    
    Saddam Hussein threatened the stability of the entire world.  He
    gassed Kurds, has tortured men and women in Iraq, killed untold
    hundreds (possibly thousands)  in Kuwait.  An estimated 20 thousand
    Iraqi's killed already - because this man would not obey instructions
    of the security council.   Most middle eastern countries are ruled
    by Dictators who use "a sword to take power, oppress to solidify,
    and propoganda of hatred to maintain it."  
    
    You do not negotiate or sanction a sword carrying killer.  As C.S.
    Lewis stated : "A failure to feel wrath can be morally imasculating
     - a call for justice is rightly fueled by wrath at injustice."
    
    I will say that I don't feel it is the U.S.'s responsiblity to 
    preserve peace in the Middle East.  I believe the responsibilities
    lie with the Arabs (and most obviously, the PLO).  The PLO can 
    make or break peace in the region.  
    
    The U.S. fought for *freedom* - primarily, not "peace".  We did not
    fight to force ideology on the rest of humanity.  Peace-wimps will
    say that the military is just a bunch of blood-thirsty warmongers
    when in fact, they are just the opposite.  Those bulbous boils on
    the buttocks of humanity will say that this war was waged against
    a military obviously inferior to ours.  All military systems are
    inferior to ours.  Russia's may be bigger, but not better.  IMO.
    
    We did not fight this war out of a "wounded national pride" (i.e.
    Vietnam syndrome).  We fought because it was just.  If we now
    hold our heads high and are proud, do not confuse cause and effect.
    We fought well and we are proud, we did not fight well *so* we 
    could be proud.
    
    Bill
                                                

    I find that the last dozen or so notes (with the laudable exception of
    Mike's) are a neat and concise statement about the impact of men on
    politics. As usual, we men are intent on winning. The war's won, now
    let's win the argument in MENNOTES. Let's bluster and gloat, let's
    disparage each other's character, let's glory in our rightness.
    
    I haven't looked, because I find the warmth in that conference a
    depressing contrast to the bitterness here, but I'd guess that
    WOMANNOTES is discussing the impact of the war on Iraqi and allied
    nation families. Several tens of thousands of Iraqi families lost loved
    ones this week. I am glad that U.S. casualties were so light, in my
    nation-centric way, but the carnage hardly seems like an occasion for
    rejoicing.
    
    - Hoyt

    
  >Let's win the argument in MENNOTES.  Let's bluster and gloat, let's
   disparage each other's character.  Let's glory in our rightness.  Let's
    
   Oh brother...come off it!  We are having a discussion about politics.
    
 >nation-centric way, but the carnage hardly seems like an occasion for
  rejoicing.
    
    How noble of you!  Damn, one could only hope to strive to someday
    be as compassionate as you.  Must one underscore with every sentence
    the saddness at the lost of lives.  Shouldn't that go without saying?
    It is unfortunate, the loss of lives, however...if one were to stay
    out of a possible difficult situation in fear that people may get
    killed, well...that's ridiculous!
    
    I'm damn proud of the way our country fullfilled their mission better
    than can be expected.  So - I will revel in that.
    
    

    re .27
    
    Pinar, I doubt you'll ever understand it, but you are a major
    embarrassment to your country.  Your belligerent, bellicose badgering
    of anyone who doesn't totally agree with you is disgusting and
    tiresome.  We are not peace-mongers, or appeasers, or wimps, or any of
    the other insults you have hurled our way simply because we refuse to
    glory in death.  What you call pride is in reality callousness, and you
    gleefully and cheerfully have been subjecting us to it without qualm or
    conscience for far too long.
    
    Down this end of the world we're proud - but ours is a quiet,
    sincere pride which doesn't need blasting from the rooftops to be made
    real.  It is a pride that our forces quietly and professionally went
    into a nasty situation, did what they were asked to do, and now that
    it's over they're coming home.
    
    Your talk goes far beyond simple pride.  Your aggressive, antagonistic
    attacks consistently demonstrate that worst of all creatures - the Ugly
    American.  Loud, insensitive, intolerant, ignorant, condescending and
    patronising, you give every impression of being the sort of person who
    thinks foreigners will understand better if you shout at them.  You
    consistently distort and dissemble others' words, apparently wilfully
    unable to read what we are saying through the filter of what you want 
    us to say.
    
    It's people like you, Pinar, who give America a bad name.  Your
    chest-beating, blustering, blundering ethnocentricity is worse than
    boring, it's degrading.  We don't buy your simple-minded view of the
    world, and we're fed up to the back teeth having your inanities,
    half-truthes and dogmatic pap shoved down our throats.  You exemplify 
    all the worst attributes the rest of us associate with America.
    
    Undoubtedly, to you I'm some sort of left-wing simp, because I
    absolutely refuse to revel in your monstrous, malignant militarism. 
    As usual, you'd be wrong, for no-one who knows me would ever classify
    me as such, but that won't stop you.  And you are attempting the same
    dishonest and disgraceful trick on others as well.  One day, perhaps,
    you'll learn to consider the merits of legitimate debate and query,
    in place of your knee-jerk reactionism that labels anyone who
    disagrees.  Of you course, you may learn also to read what is there,
    but we mustn't hope for miracles.
    
    You want to stop your notes being deleted by the moderators?  My advice
    is to remove their rabidity and replace it with reason.  It's got
    nothing to do with political correctness or any other of your
    nonsenses.  It's got everything to do with your inability first of all
    to consider and contemplate other's ideas, and then your inability to
    respond to them in anything but offensive and outrageous terms.
    
    It's people like you, Pinar, who really make it hard for me to remember
    that most Americans are worth knowing.

    
    I've been called worse, by better people than you....
    

    re.27 & .28
    You gents are going to bust a vein.
    
               

    I'd like to see my country (The USA) known by the rest of the world as
    strong, yet humble and compassionate.  There is nothing wrong with
    being sure of yourself, but there's a fine line and many times people
    come off looking like a pompous *ss.  There is nothing glorious about
    war (I'd feel confident that Jerry Beeler and the rest of the vets
    would back me up on that), but there are times which call for such
    action.  After seeing how grateful the Kuwaiti people are AS WELL AS
    the Iraqi prisoners are, I am confident that the coalition did the
    correct thing.  As I said earlier though, I am saddened by the loss of
    life as well as by the NEED for taking this action.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike
                          

    re: 28
    
    Good note, Simpson, particularly as an analysis of a writing style
    quite popular in these notesfiles, mostly in the 'Box.
    
    -roger
    

    Folks - please put a stop to the personal sniping.  Please.  Surely
    it's possible to discuss a topic without resorting to namecalling
    and ad hominem attacks.  To me, anyway, when I read a note that attacks
    another noter, it tells me that the writer doesn't have any real
    basis for their position and chose to attack rather than defend and
    support their stated view.  In other words, you lose points when
    you resort to personal attacks.
    
    			Steve

    
    Moderator,
    
      Hey how come Mr Simpson did'nt get deleted for his personal
    attack on Mr Pinar???
    
    David     

    Mr Dyben,
    
    May I suggest you write the moderators? If you seriously want
    an answer that is. Type 'show mod' at the notes prompt if
    you don't know who they are.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Bonnie,
    
    > May I suggest you write the moderators
    
     Yes you may..However I wanted it posted here..In the past when Mr.
    Pinar eluded that Mr.Simpson was of the liberal camp and quite possibly
    was hacking in from Berkley(sp),he got deleted..Yet Mr.Simpson can bash
    the h*ll out of Mr. Pinar and simply gets away with it..Apparently
    there is a double standard by which bashings are measured for persons
    on the other side of the pond...
    
    David

Re: .28

Mr. Dyben, you have a rather peculiar interpretation of events - one which
I do not share.

The moderators apparently erred in not taking action sooner in this topic.
That situation will now be corrected.

What I have seen here is, to me, very scary.  But it is a reflection of what
is going on all around the US.  Businesses are being firebombed because they
don't display an American flag outside.  Car owners are insulted and attacked
if they haven't tied a piece of yellow ribbon to their antenna.  The
mere act of speaking out against war has cost people their jobs.  And many
who wish to express their opinion are afraid to, because it is the
currently unpopular one.  How different is this, really, from the "oppression"
which we have supposedly been fighting?


I have disabled further replies to this topic.  If anyone wishes to discuss
my action, please send me mail - do not enter notes here.

			Steve