Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:37:47 04/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2003 at 22:33:09, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On April 02, 2003 at 17:56:31, Amir Ban wrote: > >>I read it, but I don't understand why you are not going. Let's see, will you: >> >>- Be aiding evil acts ? >>- Do something unpatriotic ? >>- Identify with views you don't support ? >>- Appear to endorse the jerk ? >> >>None of this seems to apply. It's not like going to Berlin 1936 or even Moscow >>1980. >> >>The only issue that I understand is worrying that you'll be met with hostility. >>I think it's reasonable to ask the ICGA to ensure this doesn't happen. After all >>the President is British (and Jewish). >> >>Your agenda should be: >> >>1. Win the war >>2. Try to win Graz > >This is fair, but I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to go. I don't >want to accept hospitality from someone who would send something like that in >email. > >It is hard to bother an American with symbols. The swastika doesn't mean that >much to us, for instance, we don't have a visceral reaction to it. A burning >American flag means something to some people, but it means very little to a lot >of people, for instance me. > >Soldiers are something different. We had Vietnam, Where nobody expected you, the USA and its soldiers! Agent Orange - you remember? The former Air pilots know it. They are in Vietnam and share the work of people who are trying to help the Vietnamese people. >and everyone here knows how >much the returning soldiers were hurt by people who spit at them and so on. Who spat on them and where? Or are you talking about the war criminal who went beserk in MyLai? Speak clear text, Bruce! > So >now, no matter what people believe about any particular war, everyone here has >figured out that the troops are off limits. And they casn do what they want? What?? They can bomb market places with hundreds of civilian victims?? >If you criticize, you go top down, >not the other way. That is Free Speech? > >I can't think of anything you could send an American that would offend them >more. Really. If any American has an idea, please let me know. This is called mass hystery. You are free to lose your mind of course. > >It goes beyond this though. There is genuine animosity underlying this. I >don't want to accept the hospitality of someone who hates Americans Is this about popaganda now? Who said so and where? Evidence! >and feels >compelled to express it this way. How do you accept hospitality from someone >who makes it clear to you that he hates you? Because you have the hysteric view that you are an USA soldier too, the academic Dr. Donninger is NOT allowed to argue against the evils of war? Is this about craziness? Mind control or what? Exorcism? And you, Bruce, the exorcist? >This is not just a vaguely >unpleasant post, or something like that. This was an email Nasty. So you would have digested the critic better if it were expressed via normal, public message? And you can't see the very personal approach of Chrilly who wanted to send you his very personal view?? Fine! So if I get email I am running into CCC and publish the emailed content and complain and boycott the outer world? Good soldier, Bruce. You are now in war with Old Europe! Music please! [Cynism intented!!] >so off the wall that >I thought it might be a forged-header "Here is a special program, you are the >first to see it, I hope you are liking it very much" virus thing. > >Perhaps the sender meant it as an anti-war email. But I took it as a hate post, It IS !!!! But not against you, you child of the USA. It's a hate post against such a war and all the victims. Know what I mean or can't you read since you are in war now, Bruce??? >and I think most Americans would also take it this way. > >Beyond all of this is something very concrete that affects someone other than >myself. I have received an email that essentially expresses the hope that a >specific basically innocent person will undergo torture and death, which seems >rather likely at this point. How can I receive this and have anything to do >with the person who sent it? Easy one. You are pro such events of war. He's a friend of yours (alias CC) and he wished that you might rethink your position! Got it? No? Back to High School! > >Finally, let's talk about the person who sent the email. He sent more of these, >with little stir. Maybe an angry email back. If I had ignored this, if I had >argued with him about the war, if I had called him an asshole, or in some other >way had reacted as *he* planned, he would feel like he had done the right thing. But how could he be right if your Holy President said "Yes, War is Good!"? That makes you right, Bruce. While Chrilly is the idiot who is against that war. Bad luck! > He would feel good about having done this. If I do this instead, perhaps at >some point he will regret that he sent this material. He may feel bad about >having done this. That's a step in the right direction. Of more massacres of war. Are you blood-thirsty now, Bruce? > >Let him learn that there are consequences when you do this kind of thing. Uhmm, you are talking about your President? [Cynism intended.] Rolf > >bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.