Quote:


What is that?

Yer not wrong there Will.
I did get some funny looks from my boss when I proposed bring back crucifixion for the non-production of homework! And death by being fed feet first to a crocodile for truancy.
I feel that both of these are highly motivational techniques for students to learn!

Mark

Democracy at work. It's good to see. Freedom of choice exercised by the masses of free thinking individuals, under no duress to support or reject any idea.

I'm proud that the system works

How can anyone, now say that those in this forum are not a conscienscious and considerate group who regard these things (which other forums disregard) as important and worth protecting.
I mean, 38 people who really care (5 of whom vote "doesn't matter"), can't be wrong. Thanks for your input all.

P.S. I may be naive or just plain stupid but I really do need someone to clarify the forum meaning of (or for) "politics". For instance, is the UN a political organisation, given that EVERY posting there is politically decided and motivated by GOVERNMENTS that wish the views of the people who elect them to be represented in the internatuonal forum (and rightly so).
Is the UN now a banned subject and also, as I pointed out previously, the susidising of wheat farmers in the U.S.  

Glad you like our meat Oso.................

I couldn' give a hoot about the US wheat subsidy. I'm pretty sure, neither could anyone else here. That's my point. It's pure politics but it's not likely to become a controversial subject, is it?

Hence the question.

If I was to post about, say, the starving millions in Africa and voice opinions with regard to the great work done by World Vision, Care International and such agencies, would my post be deleted or locked? It's more "political" than any war.

Anyway, doesn't matter so much I suppose. I am in agreeance with the banning of posts referring to the current conflict. In fact, I agree with banning (or at least deterring) any post which could cause upset or distress to anyone. Just let's not call them "political" because it's an expeditious way to have them excluded, deal with them each as they arrive. Anything else is oppressive. 

Well, I was probably not the only one offended by the US bashing. But I was one of the most vocal about it. I am a typical "Bullheaded Yank"!

I do not mind discussions about the right or wrong of American ways. For instance Bren brought up the wheat subsidies a couple times before i even responded - and only then because I thought I had a good smart ass comment to make. I did not take offense.

My point is that I for one, do not believe it is what is said - it is how it is couched. Most forget that in the written word voice inflection and volumn is lost. So that your opinion should be phrased in a manner so that the reader does not apply mistaken ideas about anger or insult. (Ozzy prolly could splain this better).

You want to tell me how low your opinion of Bush is? Ok. Just phrase it so that I realize it is in jest or in a friendly manner - rather than an attack. And do not take offense if I reciprocate.

I believe I am just trying to say - that among friends - anything can be said if all the proper rules of civility are observed and proper manners displayed. It is a hard thing to do and takes a true wordsmith to do it consistently. I am guilty of the same from time to time. But I think that is what smilies are for - to convey or attach inflection to a sentence or paragraph - to qualify the emotions of the statement.

Not that I am saying you folks are lacking in those graces.    But there were a few comments about Bush, the US, and several cartoons hammering home the same idea repeatedly without comment that made me think they were attacks. A couple of the posts were obvious yelling.

But I still love y'all anyway!  


BTW - I ask you - am I yelling in the above statement? Talking in anger? Frustration? Calm? Lecturing? Conciliatory(sp)? Flat statement? Can you tell my mood?

Let me tell you a little story about an experience I had regarding insulting another country's leader.

During Nam when I was attached to the Royal Navy in Hong Kong I was assigned to Shore Patrol. I walked a beat with a Brit sailor. We stepped inside the door of one Pub to check it out. The place was dead silent and full of drinking Brits, seemed odd. So I thought I would observe for a minute before leaving.

That is when I noticed a US sailor, very inebriated, using the bar a crutch and getting very loud and obnoxious. He had been silent when we walked in, but put his mouth in gear again.

He hoisted his glass to the obligatory picture of the Queen. I say obligatory as it seems every Pub has one.

Anyway, he raised his glass and tilted it towards to the Queen's image and angrily stated "(f word) the Queen".

Stone silence in the Pub. All the Brit patrons and my Brit partner turned to look at me to see what I was going to do.

What should I have done? I had options. I could arrest the offender. I could have taken the SP band off and defended him against all the Brits. There were 20 or 30 of them, even at that I was not intimidated, I have had my butt kicked by the best. Besides - the odds were just about right. 

So, what to do?

I knew they would not kill him. But was sure they would give him a beating that he wouldn't forget for a while.

I decided to step outside and have a smoke and think on the solution. It was hard to think with all the racket going on inside at that point. Then the  Sailor in question came flying out the door head first. All bloodied up - must have hit the ground hard or something. Probably tripped on the door sill. At that point I made up my mind and arrested him.

Should I have stayed and fought it out no matter what, back up my fellow American. In most cases yes - in this one no. He was a jerk and had it coming - the Brits had the right to do what they did.

Even though she is not my Queen - I still have the utmost respect and would never disrespect her to anyone else. She embodies all that is Britian and any slur would be insulting my Brit friends directly.

In other words he earned the beating.

I can't help myself..............................

There have been 3 topics posted regarding Meigs airport under this forum heading that have popped up in the last day or two.

The motivation, subject matter, complaints and most of the discussion have been POLITICAL. The act was even perpertrated by a POLITICAL figure, the Mayor.

It's controversial and POLITICAL in so far as the decision and action was concerned, but obviously not seen as a subject that requires banning or limiting comment on.  ???

Hey Bren. If you want a better understanding on what is going on with Daly - do a search on American "political machines". You will probably see the Daly name pop up more than a few times.

Pete, and All,

Perhaps I have been too pedantic in my quest for clarification. This has only been because of what I saw as people branding something as political simply because it was expeditious to do so (because politics had previously been banned), in order to get it banned.

I'm sorry for pushing it but I just wanted to demonstrate that a "blanket ban" or limitation on politics or such subjects will make it difficult to discuss many things which are by nature, harmless or of no consequence compared to the seriousness of this one "controversial" matter. The airport posts served exactly that purpose.

Thanks for clarifying Pete. I do apologise for any personal consternation.
I, personally, don't think you have to worry if flame wars are going on. Even with the war postings, there weren't any.

That's it from me>