Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from the antichrist Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Whose fault?? Mary jane's (reply to this comment)

from Sonderval Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 03:32 (Agree/Disagree?) hrm, my feelings on this topic are mixed, on the one side I do prefer it when people run spellcheck on their posts before posting them, but on the other once posted oftentimes their posts are on subjects that are very close to their own hearts and the hearts of their audience, so it is not surprising that when someone corrects their spelling (something they do not consider to be important compared to the subject matter of their post) and seemingly completely ignores the content they take offence. I could be wrong but I would suggest that if you responded to the content of the post and then included a footnote after your comment saying "PS, great post but next time run it through spellchecker, it'll be easier to read" you will have shown that the content of the post is more important to you than the presentation, and the author will take less offense, and is also far more likely to take your constructive criticism at face value and even possibly start using spellchecker, which surely is the aim of the exercise. Education and grammar are important and can mean the difference between getting on in the outside world and struggling, but far more important than that is people skills, I'd suggest that many people on this site still have much to learn, I know I do and probably always will. PS, if the article is not worth responding to and is also badly spelled, I'd say the author clearly has more important problems than his/her spelling so it's really not worth raising it as an issue, flaming idiots for their badly spelled idiotic post is hardly going to achieve much is it? (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 03:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Incidentally, I know that you said 'Even if someone prefaces their criticism by complimenting the content and message of the writing, the writer and any number of enraged third parties take offence and verbally lambast that person for daring to suggest that English is a beautiful language that merits correct usage' But I still feel from what I've read of your replies to other people's posts correcting their spelling that you have got the balance wrong. You need to have the focus more on the content and post the suggestion regarding the spelling as an aside, as realistically the content is more important than the spelling and you need to make that clear if the aim is to cause them to improve their spelling rather than cause offense.(reply to this comment)

from s_girl Friday, June 27, 2003 - 17:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally agree with you. Yes well about english being a beautiful language......I'll leave the thought hanging. I do think every language should be used properly so you are totally right. (reply to this comment)

from Mika, who hates to correct Joe's spelling mistake Friday, April 04, 2003 - 03:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, in your pursuit of making this world a better place by using correct grammar and spelling, I thought you might like to know that your article contained one noticeable spelling error. You said that people "take offence..." This should, in fact, be "take offense...." I offer the following dictionary definitions of "offense" for your reference: 4. anger or resentment: anger, resentment, hurt, or displeasure   http://encarta.msn.com/xImages/dictionary/bullet.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif">“Please don’t take offense.”   http://encarta.msn.com/xImages/dictionary/bullet.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif">His remarks caused great offense. 5. cause of displeasure or anger: something that causes displeasure, humiliation, anger, resentment, or hurt   http://encarta.msn.com/xImages/dictionary/bullet.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif">The request was an offense to their dignity. Normally, I don't care to nitpick at someone's spelling or grammar usage, but in this case, I thought I'd make an exception. Just trying to do my part to make this world a better place. :)   (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, April 04, 2003, 13:13 (Agree/Disagree?) My dictionary has "offence" as a valid spelling.  Microsoft Word also accepts "offence."(reply to this comment)

from charity Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 02:30

from Joe H Monday, March 17, 2003 - 02:25 (Agree/Disagree?) In light of Nan, Nick, sarafina, and exmember all feeling the need to point out that a person's level of education should not reflect on his/her intelligence, despite my never saying anything to that effect, I'd like to clarify something:  I never once complained that any of you poor spellers and writers were unintelligent.  I just wish that more people would take the time to learn the rules of English and follow them correctly, rather than wallow in the ignorance that the Family forced upon us.  And if one more person repeats my argument back to me about how the cult deprived them of their education, I think I'm going to scream.  I know it's the cult's fault!  I said that several times.  My issue is with people who continue to use that as an excuse for their own ignorance even after they left the cult several years ago.  I agree with something PompousJohn said before he got banned to the Trailer park, and as a result, probably won't be back on here anymore: "If you’re really not lazy you’ll find something to do. If you’re really that smart you’ll have a hunger for knowledge that will eliminate your ignorance. There is a good reason why laziness is associated with unemployment and stupidity with ignorance."  (reply to this comment)

From cyberslut praises the ambitious and hardworking Friday, April 04, 2003, 22:30 (Agree/Disagree?)    Completely agree with you on this one Joe. You really are the hottest boy.   CEO of CSC at CCC (reply to this comment)

From Auty is too lazy (but not ignorant) to log in Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 14:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, I think I have to somewhat agree with you on your article.  I've been out of TF for nearly 10 years and although my education is still somewhat lacking in my English & math skills, I have (and continue to) correct my language & math skills by going to college.  Sometimes I'm amazed at some emails I've received from former members with not only one spelling error, but multiple errors!  Upon reading the emails, I have a very hard time understanding what is being said & wonder how they can keep a job!  It's amazing to me that someone can be out of TF for 9-10 years and not take the effort to teach themselves how to spell properly.  I don't believe it is ignorance, I believe it's just plain old laziness.  If you truly have a learning disability, that is different, and there are schools & special programs available (at least in the US) to help you overcome your disability.  But as far as I'm concerned there is absolutely no excuse for an intelligent person to not know the difference between allot & a lot.  Poor spelling makes one look unintelligent and uneducated. Unfortunately much of society will judge you on how you present yourself not only personally but professionally. I'm not the greatest speller in the world, and my grammar isn't perfect either.  But I do know how to use the spell checker!! (reply to this comment)

From lustie Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 07:11 (Agree/Disagree?) i hate taking correction, so shut up and go away joe!!(reply to this comment)

From lustie Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 07:10 (Agree/Disagree?) i hate taking correction, so shut up and go away joe!!(reply to this comment)

From What the hell? Monday, March 24, 2003, 09:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Firstly, may I apologise in advance in the event that I fail to use the correct Queens English during the course of this comment. I think you two, Auty and Joe are rather pathetic to be taking spelling mistakes so seriously.  Most people nowadays, with busy work schedules and hectic lifestyles don’t have the time to proof read or iron out every grammatically incorrect sentence or misspelling, unlike you who seem to have too much time on your hands or, rather slow laborious typing speeds. P.S. For both your sakes I have spell checked this comment, so as to spare you the struggle of trying to understand it!     (reply to this comment)

From Auty Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 10:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I never said I was "perfect" in my spelling or grammar.  However, in my opinion I feel that using TF for our lack of education after being out of TF for a number of years is a poor excuse.  We are all adults & have the ability to make intelligent & educated decisions about what we do with our lives NOW.  As I mentioned in my comment above, if you DO have a learning disability, there is a lot of help in overcoming it.  I feel that it's time to take responsibility for our education & stop blaming ones poor spelling or lack of education on an uneducated group to make one feel better about their own laziness.  This is life folks, and it involves being somewhat educated to succeed.  The excuse of being uneducated as a child will not go over well with an employer when you are a 30 year old adult.  (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, March 24, 2003, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for that.  I'm pretty busy, and it sounds like you are too, but do you leave the house wearing an unironed shirt or unzipped pants?  They're the same in my opinion.  It takes less than a minute to check a short email for spelling errors, and in my opinion, it's a minute well spent that shows respect for yourself, your reader, and "The Queen's English."  (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 17:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for you support Auty, I know exactly what you mean about the emails.  When someone sends me an email full of "linguistic atrocities," as I call them, it's almost like a slap in the face.  They're saying "I don't respect you enough to take the time to use correct English"  That's usually all it takes, just a little effort to double check your grammar or run the spell checker.  You're very correct when you say: "Poor spelling makes one look unintelligent and uneducated."  A lot of people argue that it shouldn't matter, and that they really are intelligent, but the perception you leave others with is important too.    (reply to this comment)

From Auty once again is too lazy to login Friday, March 21, 2003, 18:37 (Agree/Disagree?) You know Joe, they just keep coming & coming don't they?  I'm speaking of the bad grammar/spelling emails.  I like the "linguistic atrocities" bit, I think I'll have to use it when I reply to this next email.  Man, I just can't make it stop.  The latest: "I don't want oyu to me offened by anything of what I have said" I think a spell checker would clear up much of this mess.  How old do you think the person who wrote this is? (reply to this comment)

From sarafina Monday, March 17, 2003, 13:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe I don't know why my name is coming up. I have not once posted a public comment on your post. Everything I have discussed with you on this has been in private. I never said I disagreed with you on this topic in fact when you first sent me this article I believe I told you it was good and well presented but also said you'd be touching a lot of nerves if you posted it. Not everything is black and white and you don't know everyone situations or the reasons they have not gone back to school. It does not mean every single person who has not is lazy or stupid. It is more your attitude towards this topic and towards the people who are not as educated as you that I have a problem with. The way you say things can be very belittling and demeaning. Anyways please leave me out of this I have found there is no point of arguing with you once you are convinced you are right. The subject and the topic are pretty much closed in your eyes. I must however applaud you for finally finding a topic of controversy that has now boosted the number of comments on your post which you have always been looking for and cared so much about even at the cost of others (clap clap clap) you finally did it.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, March 17, 2003, 10:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, The issue/s between Pompous John and myself are entirely personal. I shouldn't have gotten into it with him at all publicly on here. Considering the fact that I and he are (respectively) 28 and 31, one would hope we can work it out maturely and privately. Jules (reply to this comment)

from Chaps Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 04:31 (Agree/Disagree?)   It's a pity when some people can't take a simple hint and it has to come down to someone having to lay it out with clarity such as you have done.  I appreciate the way your article was written with seemingly almost full understanding on the subject. (reply to this comment)

from Nick Monday, March 10, 2003 - 12:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, as much as I usually agree with all that you say, I have to say that I hold this post a just a little unfair One thing to remember is that being a poor speller and writer does not necessarily mean that you are uneducated. I am probably the worlds worst speller and have never really had a great grasp of the English language. That doesn’t at all make me uneducated. I excelled in mathematics, Politics and other subjects that made sense to me and interested me. When spoken to I am fairly eloquent and come across as intelligent, It’s just the written word that I have a hard time with. You can not judge a persons intelligence and education based on one subject. (reply to this comment)

from cyberslut mocks the "compliment-hungry" Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 02:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it's so sweet when exculties make a big deal about being "educated." Most people are "educated" in the traditional sense but don't have to remind everyone every five minutes, unlike many people on this site. And to these people I say, educate yourself to know that your accomplishments have been met and are yours with or without recognition. CyberSlut CEO of CSC at CCC Disclaimer: this comment has nothing to do with this article, but Jesus told me that this would be a good place to put it. (reply to this comment)

from Nan Friday, March 07, 2003 - 19:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Consider your audience. A majority, if not all, those here were raised in a cult, which did not allow formal education. I, having received seven years of formal primary education as a child, am among the few who have the most education received while my parents were in the cult. What I did receive, K-7th grade, however, is not much by most non-cult standards. A majority of those on this site did not have the opportunity to have even that much, if any, formal education by most standards. Albatross, who I consider a very intelligent and bright individual, received only a first grade education before leaving. The fact that we did not receive much or any education, while growing up in the cult, is not to be blamed on us. We were children. We physically and legally had to do as we were told. If we were not allowed to enroll in school, then we did not. Given these facts, it seems very ignorant in itself to attack those who post here on their spelling and grammar. One thing seems apparent. Most of us are very bright, witty, intelligent and capable of making a basic logical argument. We are also very opinionated. I think these traits were developed by our mutual upbringing. We are not, however, an incredibly educated bunch. That is not to say we are to blame or we are not strong or we are not survivors or we are not capable of obtaining an education. Facts are facts, however. So, to call those here stupid or lazy just because they were deprived of formal education during the developmental years is incredibly unfair, unkind and ignorant in itself. It is one thing to return to school once an individual leaves the cult. Even then, however, most of us had to work twice as hard as others to keep up. Calculus is difficult if you missed all of high school where they taught algebra and geometry. For heaven’s sake, most of us never learned fractions or long division. It’s also hard to catch up in science, not to mention spelling and grammar. Last time I checked, they didn’t teach grammar and spelling in college. You were meant to have taken those is grade school. So, sometimes there is not an avenue to even learn what we missed. Some of us may not even know what we are missing. I didn’t learn until grad school that there’s supposed to be two spaces after a period. I have worked as hard as most to catch up. I practice spelling certain words I notice I commonly misspell. I’ve read a lot of the classic literature, of which I never even heard growing up. As a child, I knew the damn cult literature, not the classics. I am, however, still a poor speller and do not know as many literary references as my peers. It takes a long time to recover from a stolen childhood and the education we were meant to receive. So, let’s cut those here a break. I will admit I have picked on a few, but only when I see them picking on someone else for the same issue. There is still a difference, though, between those who have not because they’re lazy or stupid and those from whom it was stolen. I continue to be amazed by the level of insight and wit that a lot of those raised in the cult show. As I’ve said before, it is a testament to the strength of the human spirit. Some of those who impress me, even some with whom I disagree on issues, are not incredibly educated by most standards. It will be amazing to see what that kind of intellect can achieve when given access to real education. (reply to this comment)

From Anna H Friday, April 04, 2003, 20:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know what kind of education everyone else received while in the family, but the education I received was very good and gave me an edge over all the other students in public school.  However, I was only in the family until my fourth grade year, so I understand that others who were in longer might have had problems. (reply to this comment)

From Whoo hoo! Friday, April 04, 2003, 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, good for you. Let's have a parade! Because you're certainly not one of many. You might be one of a kind, at least who praises your top-notch cult education while knocking others’ hard earned traditional educations. And I wouldn't be so quick to say the hundreds of individuals who suffered educational neglect in the cult “had problems.” Once again, let's not attribute blame to the victims. Unless you meant that it is a problem for so many to have had their educations’ neglected, and you just weren't clear. You must be very young to not "know what kind of education everyone else received," as it was very apparent, the complete lack thereof. I remember 17 and 18 year olds raised in the cult who couldn’t do long division. In my 17 years in the cult, I never once witnessed math being taught. In fact, I remember very clearly it being said, “All the education a girl needs is enough to do shopping and cooking.” Yet, very few even knew how to add, subtract, multiply or divide fractions well enough to split a recipe. Pathetic! The knowledge that was imparted on the typical child in the cult was how to clean, watch children and peddle literature, or some manner of religious publication, on the street. That kind of knowledge will land you a great job cleaning houses or selling vacuum cleaners door to door; but without a degree and/or license, it won’t even allow you to work in a daycare, much less teach, in most western countries. (reply to this comment)

From Anna H Saturday, April 05, 2003, 00:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry to have offended you so greatly.  God!! Just because you didn't get a good education doesn't mean you have to attack the people who did. I was just saying that my education wasn't so bad.  My brothers didn't get the greatest education and I feel bad for them.  I was just lucky enough to get out before they stopped giving me an education.  However, all of my brothers are very intelligent and have something that public school couldn't teach them, I don't know if that is because of the Family or in spite of it.(reply to this comment)

From Yay Saturday, April 05, 2003, 15:40 (Agree/Disagree?) "Woo hoo" may be offended but really does not seem to me to be attacking you in that post, Anna.  I think for some of us who were the oldest Family kids, it would help us understand the younger ones if the younger ones acknowledged our dilemma, as you end up doing with regard to your brothers in your reply to Woo Hoo.  Every once in a while, when there's a post and we older types, at least me (who may be very sensitive about these topics, I'll admit, because of our situations, you know, having been sexually and otherwise abused as children, in many cases we are alone because our parents remain in and are not even proud of the new accomplishments they didn't give us any help in to get, etc.) may not see our experience validated, only praise for the Family experience that feels like it means we should be happy about the Family too or there's something wrong with us.  I am very glad it seems that some younger people had certain things improved for them.  I am grateful to people like the woman who carried out the English case at her great expense and trouble; this kind of things forced change, IMO. I think part of what happened in TF was also that the end-time kept getting postponed, so they eventually stopped treating the new waves of kids as extremely as we first ones were treated, i.e., the end was coming so no care was taken about a future in this life (much less this world, which was to be rejected and stayed apart from). (reply to this comment)

From Jules Saturday, April 05, 2003, 01:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Anna, I have siblings who (I assume) are your age, who, although my family is still in, (FM) are in a real school now. Some have had severe problems and some have excelled, but all of my siblings are extremely intelligent and, I agree, have something that public school couldn't teach them. I have a friend who is studying anthropology, and has told me about an anthropological demographic termed Third Culture Kids (TCKs). These are typically military brats or missionary kids, where the parents are part of one culture, but the children are raised in another, and rather than being integrated into the alien culture, the children form a hybrid of their native and their dominant culture. My friend has been promising to submit a paper on this topic to this site for some time, but has been swamped with work and school, and I don't know when he will have time to do it. Anyways, some interesting things about TCKs, is that they are (generally) culturally aware and more adaptable than people that have grown up in one specific culture. They have sensitivity and understanding of other perspectives that single culture individuals do not have. With the world (through technology, migration and globalization) moving towards intercultural dynamics, those of us who have these skills do have a distinct advantage over those who do not. Don't get me wrong, the Family as a whole did not educate us properly, there was tremendous abuse that occurred, and there was gross negligence in regards to our general welfare as children. However, many of us speak many languages, are sensitised to a variety of cultures and people, and can certainly use these skills to our advantage. The Family clearly stated in their own literature that their goal was to keep us "paper peddlers" and "sales boys". This was certainly nothing they planned. However, being TCKs, we do have skills that are invaluable to the modern workforce and we do have insight and awareness that only comes from living outside the box. The Family's plan to keep us outside of society, if we have the wherewithal to make the sacrifices and the immense effort to catch up academically (as obviously so many of us do) can actually backfire and make us leaders within it.   (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Thursday, May 08, 2003, 10:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Bravo, Jules!!! Very interesting about to learn about TCK's.  I for one, while I hate and despise what TF stands for, have over the years begun to put it behind me.  I realise that my experience living in a poor third world country has given me a broader outlook on life than most people I have met, especially in the midwestern and southern US.  We may not have had a "traditional" education, but if we're smart, we'll learn that we do have several advantages and use them to succeed in "normal" life.  If anything, we should take the attitude, "I'll show them" (TF) and do our best to succeed in "the system" which I'm sure they (TF) are all praying against!  Thanks for the insight on this subject, Jules!!(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Saturday, March 08, 2003, 19:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Nan, first I want to thank you for your thoughtful and eloquent response. Apparently either I've failed to express myself well enough, or you've failed to understand me. These sentences from your response stuck out to me: "The fact that we did not receive much or any education, while growing up in the cult, is not to be blamed on us. " That's exactly one of the points I tried to make, I don't know why you're rehashing my argument. "it seems very ignorant in itself to attack those who post here on their spelling and grammar. " I'm not attacking (though I may have in the past, for which I apologize), I'm simply trying to get people to start caring about these things and make an effort. "to call those here stupid or lazy just because they were deprived of formal education during the developmental years is incredibly unfair, " I didn't. I called them ignorant. I also devoted a paragraph to clarifying the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Those who are too stupid or too lazy to run spell check have only themselves to blame. "So, let’s cut those here a break." Amen. But let's not allow people who know better (or who should know better) to defile the English language and blame the cult that they left many years ago. And let's not attack people who offer constructive criticism.(reply to this comment)

From Laiah Saturday, March 08, 2003, 14:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I feel I need to disagree when it comes to feeling that you cannot 'catch up' on schooling. Yes, we were neglected when it came to getting an education but the Family did publish volumes designed for helping the high school drop outs of our parents' generation construct letters and business documents. There were whole lists of commonly misspelled words to study, grammar articles etc. Now, I may not be the best educated person around and someone like Joe could probably pick this small paragraph to pieces, but I did my part to work on my spelling by simply picking up the book and studying. It took work but if all you had was a dictionary in your home it was possible to teach yourself. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 19:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree all the way. I mean there comes a point where you have to stop blaming your parents and get off your ass and do things yourself. (reply to this comment)

From Bootylicious Sunday, March 09, 2003, 09:46 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you are right, Laiah. You are never too old to learn, or to improve. If you really want something badly, like education, well then either go to school or get a book. Nowadays with the internet, you can look up basically anything you like, and learn so much. There are online-dictionaries, online-courses or CDroms for learning basically anything under the sun. So many of my ex-fam friends went back to school, even if they were 2-3 years older than everyone else. So what? At least they are learning instead of slouching in front of the T.V. and living off welfare like I did when I first left. First I was very discouraged, thought I would never be able to do anything due to my education. I got lucky and found a good job, and once I am a little more settled down and both of my kids are in school, I will study also. Fine, I may be rather ignorant in a lot of mundane things, I am not so good at business and such, but I do ask for help or try to look things up. In some things I am more experienced than "normal" people, for example I know how to save money. (Thank you grandpa, for teaching me to use three sheets of toilet paper...JK) We shouldn't put ourselves down for being ignorant, but we shouldn't leave it at that either! Hit the school bench or take a course, there ain't no excuse!   (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Saturday, March 08, 2003, 19:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Laiah, you're entirely right that it was sometimes possible (albeit difficult) to educate yourself in the TF, and the people who did take the initiative to educate themselves (despite being punished for it in some situations) deserve special congratulations. That being said, it is not a child's responsibility to KNOW that they need an education. It is the responsibility of parents AND of society to insure that every child is sufficiently educated. What I'm trying to say in my article is that, as adults, it's OUR problem now, even though we can BLAME it on TF and be completely justified in doing so. (reply to this comment)

From Ex-member Monday, March 17, 2003, 23:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I like that! Excellent quote!(reply to this comment)

From Ex-member Saturday, March 15, 2003, 23:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, I don't mean to be deliberately flaming here but I find your constant referrel to your "efforts to teach yourself even at the cost of being punished" hugely unfair in that you seem to have this sort of "Oh, look at me, I am to be congratulated cuz I was so great and above all you!" attitude about it....have you ever considered that not everyone on this site was a pampered HCS brat in an unrealistic, show home environment and may not have had (literally) even a few minutes to devote to this? When I first left the Family my schedule was so tight between work (teaching my nazi ESL classes all over the metropolitan area), study and other engagements that if I stopped for even five minutes after a class to talk to my teacher or a friend in the street, I would be running behind schedule and have to make up for the lost time. I planned my meals so I could grab a bite to eat as I passed certain places that happened to be (literally) in my path as I couldn't afford to go even a few blocks out of my way while running between classes. I chose my gym based entirely on where I would be at what time and had to schedule that time in on the days I was there....there were times I would pack my hair products in my massive shoulder bag and actually take my "gym hour" to stop off and have a shower without using one piece of exercise equipment as I would otherwise just not have the time to keep my hair looking respectable....I learned this high level of dicipline in my time management from being an OC/JETT in a Sicily RTC where we had to have potty breaks scheduled as we were either in "Ministries" in the home or full time outreach. And I am not talking some fun little show...I was a native speaker AND on the teen singing team (I was tall and looked 15) which meant I would get up at 6:00 a.m. and go out "Postering" or "Tooling" all day and then when the rest of my team was going home, I would meet with the singing team and change in the van, turn around and swing dance while singing w/o mikes till 2:00 a.m.-I shit you not! Next day when the rest of the singing team got to sleep in...guess where I was? Try "out witnessing" again! -Smile, look lively, repeat! When I was a teen I had all the usual "devotions", "JJT" etc to deal with before either "taking a group" all day or later when it was all single family homes practically raising my younger brother, cooking and "fundraising" 3 days out of the week, not to mention all those lovely dishes the adults were to high and mighty to take a turn washing...if I wanted to educate myself (which I finally did, thank you) I had to do it with my baby brother on my hip from the time he woke up till I put him to sleep at night...round about half an hour b4 my "lights out". I once had  a screaming match with my dad about it....that would be me wanting to study in peace and not being able to cuz the baby was fussing unceasingly...most parents would want to take him and see what was wrong but mine where in "home council" and couldn't be bothered...I screamed that he was their son after all and my dad chased my down the stairs with the crying baby in my arms where he slapped me and yelled at me for my disrespect...my reward for this valiant rebellion; my books taken from me, posters torn off the wall and extra word. My point; don't talk about shit you don't understand. I know we all suffered in different ways and just because you didn't live what I did, doesn't mean you didn't have your problems too but you have no idea what life on "the field" was like for us "ignorant" folk or what it is like today so stop setting yourself up as some great hero and "judge not lest ye be judged"! I agree with what you say about blaming our present lives on our parents....I am just talking about your snide remarks concerning our attempts or lack thereof to educate ourselves while in the family....some of us didn't even have THAT option! As to what Laiah said; Yeah I am good in language arts today and I did learn some from the "Commonly Misspelled Words List". Yeah, I was punished cuz I was studying this during "word time" instead of reading those horrid DB's for the fifty millionth time. The last time I remember having school was when I was just about 8 and it was reall hit and miss depending on whether we even had a house and no, there was never a dictionary in my home (unless it was a Italian/English English/Italian or similar). Again, I was raised in field homes, not WS/our money backed show parlours...where did you grow up? And I am sure you'll pick this post apart. (Look at that, I started my sentence with a conjunction!!!! That's perfectly acceptable nowadays, you'd know this if you really study the rules in our language...again not saying you don't either...just messin with you.) As a professor of the English language, bad spelling and grammar bug me too, but from my experience teaching it to high level executives, I know that ones grasp of the English language or the ability to express ones self well in writing alone are not accurate reflections of their level of intelligence or education! Peace and kisses! :) (reply to this comment)

From K Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 09:04 (Agree/Disagree?) It's about time this was said, well done.  (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Sunday, March 16, 2003, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) My point; don't talk about shit you don't understand. Sounds like you should take some of your own advice ex.  We didn't grow up together and you have no idea about my life or what I've been through.  I was at the HCS for all of 2 years, watch some of the later videos, you'll notice that I'm not on them.  I stated very plainly that I know it's not anybody's fault that they didn't get a proper schooling.  I also stated that it's no child's responsibility to educate themselves or to even know that they need an education.  I never asked for people to tell their sob stories in an effort to explain why they didn't get an education.  I know you had some hard times, but I don't want to hear about it.  I want you to express yourself in a manner befitting an English teacher.  If everybody would stop immediately getting on the defensive and just read what I said, they might realize that they agree with me. (reply to this comment)

From Ex-member Monday, March 17, 2003, 23:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, You really should read people's posts more carefully before getting so upset over them! I never claimed to know your lifestory; on the contrary, breaking my usual rule about not repeating myself, I believe I stated quite clearly a NUMBER of times that I do NOT know what your life story is or what your experiences have been. I apologize if you feel I was implying that you grew up in the HCS. I was merely stating that I had not and (again) in no way meant to convey the impression that you had as I have no evidence to support this claim. I believe I even asked where you had... My original complaint was entirely on a different note but as I mentioned before, I don't like to repeat myself so you'll just have to either go back and read it again with out preconceived ideas of what I am trying to say, or else just let it go. As to all your other "zingers"... What makes you think I am not educated? I sure didn't get it from TF but I am no longer in TF (hence the nick name)...I left because they tried to tell me I couldn't work or go to college and I disagreed...again if you had read my post properly, you might have caught mention of me studying in college....and thanks for your sympathy about my sob stories! Good thing I don't need it, huh? I actually was not looking for it from you...I am proud of my accomplishments despite obstacles. BTW, I just looooove to argue; if I had the patience I would have been a litigator...but I don't, especially not with children or tedious subjects so don't take it so personal...ok? (reply to this comment)

From Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 19:11 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

from PompousJohn Friday, March 07, 2003 - 18:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I found through recent experience that there is one thing more annoying than having to deal with constant spelling and grammar mistakes; and this is having your constant spelling and grammar mistakes pointed out to you when you are trying to make a point. (I assume the point I am trying to make, which is sometimes important; is being ignored completely) My English of course is at least adequate, but often when I speak Spanish my wife and her family completely ignore what I'm trying to say and swap jokes about my grammar and pronunciation, often complete with impromptu skits and impersonations. Dominicans speak some of the worst Spanish in the world, (Brazilians speaking Portuguese are easier to understand, even if you don't speak a word of Portuguese) but this doesn’t stop them from ignoring my point completely in order to make fun of my grammar, and I regard it as a cheap way to back out of putting up a logical argument. I have decided to stop doing this myself since it bothers me so much, and I think you might want to consider the same, Joe. (reply to this comment)

From thepersoniamnow Saturday, March 08, 2003, 09:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah you have a point about whats annoying about correcting the issue John. I think generally speaking when someone writes an article they are trying to express something that they feel and to post a grammar or spelling suggestion is annoying at best. I wouldn't do it unless the error created a double meaning or rendered the topic being presented unintelligable. (does that even make sense? :)(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, March 07, 2003, 21:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes John, you're entirely correct. I don't think that we should all start picking apart each other's writing for errors in conventions. My point is that people should take the time and effort to both learn the rules and to apply them. Oh, and about your Spanish, people don't do that to me anymore, maybe you just need more practice till you get fluent. Good luck.(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Saturday, March 08, 2003, 09:41 (Agree/Disagree?) If 17 years of experience didn't make me fluent, nothing will. I speak Spanish as well as I care to, and I at least am convinced that I can convey and understand any message I need to. I sometimes take poetic license in Spanish as I do in English, but I find that Dominicans don't "get" what I'm trying to do and are quick to assume that a mistake is being made. Those that don't already know I am American though, seldom guess that's where I'm from, usually thinking I'm from some other Spanish speaking country where people pronounce all of the consonants in each word and don't drop random syllables from common phrases. My biggest mistakes usually come in the form of mis-guessing the genders of random objects (which to my mind are genderless) especially those exceptions to the rule where words ending in “o” are male and those ending in “a” are female. (La mano, etc.) I also have difficulty with words that are commonly used in both languages but with different meanings, like “actually” which we use in English as synonymous with “really” but which means in Spanish (actualmente) “currently” likewise “currently” (corrientemente) if used at all would mean “commonly”. Other terms like “self conscious” cannot be translated directly (it seems) because “auto conciente” seems to mean nothing at all or else some obscure philosophical idea never heard outside a classroom. I also have issues with some of the fundamental reasoning processes that seem to reveal themselves in Spanish sentence structure. Most of us are aware of how Japanese grammar is specially structured to avoid confrontation, and Spanish seems structured to avoid responsibility. English: I like you. Spanish: Me gustas. (You please me) There seems to be literally no way to express a preference in Spanish while at the same time taking responsibility for having that preference. English: I’m late. Spanish: Se me cogió la hora. ok, this may just be the way people say it here, and could directly be translated into English as either “The time grabbed me” or “The time fucked me” – either way, it’s a long ways from “I’m late”, and seems to pass all of the responsibility off on the “time”. English: I lost my key. Spanish: Se me perdió la llave. Needless to say, when you are in a position of responsibility trying to get things done and trying to get other people to get things done, working with deadlines and budgets etc. it can be very frustrating to deal with people who don’t so much evade responsibility but don’t even seem to have a clear idea what it is, or that fulfilling their duties on time is a personal responsibility and not a random result of mysterious conspiratorial forces beyond their control. Well all of this has to do with why I don’t continue studying and go the last 10 laps to perfect my Spanish. I prefer to think in English, I know my Spanish will continue to improve with time, but I’m satisfied with it the way it is. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Saturday, March 08, 2003, 18:39 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right John, spanish is a tough language, and if you're not instantly being asked "¿Eres gringo?", then obviously you're doing a pretty good job. Americans who butcher Spanish or don't even attempt to mask their horrible accents infuriate me. This is an even bigger pet peeve for me than the misuse of English. I personally appreciate it when people correct my Spanish, unless they're doing it in a mean spirited way like some of your coworkers and in-laws are. I let my friends tease me about my Spanish to their heart's content. People say Latin Americans use language to shift responsibility due to years of servitude under harsh colonial masters. I think it's a lot more complex than that, but if you want to explicitly express responsibility for your actions and preferences, try these: Eng: I like you Span: Te admiro Eng: I'm late Span: Llegué/Llego tarde Eng: I lost my key Span: Perdí la/mi llave I wouldn't use any of these because I prefer to use local slang as much as possible. I've noticed an interesting irony regarding a language: It's a system by which everybody uses the same words to express ideas, but only by knowing and abiding by these rules can you express yourself creatively. I can be real "individual" and invent my own language, but if no one else understands me, what's the point? (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Monday, March 10, 2003, 08:16 (Agree/Disagree?) During the last 17 years communicating is Spanish, I have never heard those 3 phrases used. I'm not going to argue with you about the meaning of "admiro" in Spanish, and why it's not used in everyday boy/girl talk; I think the fact that these three phrases are avoided like the plague makes the point for me, similar to the way that the Japanese almost never use their word for "no", and the Chinese don't even seem to have one (they use "is" and "is not" in it's place of yes and no) "if you want to explicitly express responsibility for your actions and preferences,try these:" That's exactly the problem, Joe, I already do. What I want now is for EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO IT, TOO! (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Monday, March 10, 2003, 15:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Open your mind a little bit man.  You're in a different culture where a different language is spoken, yet you want everyone to think and speak the same way you do?  And quit dissing Spanish!  It's the second most widely spoken language in the world (after Mandarin) and it's one of few languages that is growing in number of native and non-native speakers.  Some of the best literature of the 20th century was written in Spanish, and the first European novel was Don Quixote by Cervantes.  Shakespeare was a huge fan of Spanish, said that he imagined God and the angels speaking it, which is ironic, because they are usually depicted as speaking Shakespearean English.  (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Monday, March 10, 2003, 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Everybody knows God and his angels speak American English. God tried the Shakespeare thing, but it was just too hard to pull off convincingly with the Texas accent and all. Sometimes when they get high, they slip into Spanish for a few minutes, but it’s always back to English for the important stuff. Of course I want everybody to think and speak the way I do, I’m sick of that rhetorical question because the honest answer is always “yes” but everyone assumes it’s “no” (hence the rhetorical part) it’s like asking, “are you a liar like everybody else?” I doubt the culture here would be as dear to you if you lived here, too, nothing has ever made me love my country as much as having to live in somebody else’s. Of course I’m not talking about Spain; I’m talking about their language which they spread across the world like rancid margarine on oven fresh bread, ruining the whole loaf for everybody, along with their idiotic religion that even jungle witch doctors can safely laugh at. Spain now represents a very small portion of the world’s Spanish speakers. All you have to do is look at the condition of Spanish-speaking countries to get an idea of the (non)efficiency of the language and thus the thought processes of those who speak it. I imagine being able to speak only Spanish something akin to being trapped in a very small mind, similar to not being able to read. Sure it's romantic and musical, but romance and music don't pay the bills unless you're a whore or a musician. (even then, in the case with musicians fewer than 1% make a living at it, and I think it's a fair estimate that fewer than 1% of spanish speakers are musicians) Even folks who speak French have access to more literature and even movies than Spanish speakers. If you don’t believe me, try to go on line and find a dependable source for literature in Spanish, you will find many books that no decent English bookstore would let go out of stock are not available at all in Spanish. No Ayn Rand, 1 or 2 titles from Anne Rice, No Robert Jordan, hardly anything but the circular reasoning and random masturbatory musings of pudgy self-declared philosophers who have a knack for spewing flowery nothings for several hundred pages at a time and who’s talent is generally judged by how many times per page they can set a reader thumbing through a thesaurus. For your next experiment, fiddle with the subtitle and audio options on the next 5-10 DVD’s you rent, you will find options for French about 90% of the time, but Spanish only about 75% of the time. I can only think of 5 or 6 countries that speak French right now, but there are many more Spanish speakers in the world who are completely denied subtitles on their DVD rentals. Just because we, as Americans choose to open our minds and learn other languages, understand other cultures, and confess that ours is not the only way of life, doesn’t make those other cultures we’ve opened our minds to equal to or better than ours. It doesn’t even mean that these cultures are open minded, quite often they are not, even they themselves indirectly admit this by swarming into New York and Miami in boatloads, pouring across the rivers by the hundreds, stowing away on cargo ships, etc. No offence is intended to those who come from other first world countries, I am sure you have witnessed the same things in your own countries, a constant influx of those considering themselves unfortunate enough to be born into a different culture and wishing to become part of yours.(reply to this comment)

From someone Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 16:09 (Agree/Disagree?) My advice to you Pompous is to get back to the US. You have NO right to go on about the freedom, rights and glory of the US if you yourself choose to be an expatriate. Something is amiss. You are free to choose where you live, and if you are such a patriot it surprises me that you do not even live in your country. Let me ask you this, when was the last time you did your simple civic duty and voted in the good ol' US of A?(reply to this comment)

From Ian Friday, March 14, 2003, 19:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Since when were patriots banned from travel? Civic Duty? Voting? Bullshit! Most of us that have fought for freedom don't even believe that mere civilians should be allowed to vote.       "...another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 16:33 (Agree/Disagree?) It is YOU who have no right to lecture me on my rights or to offer advice on relocation. You have no clue what my patriotic duties entail, and the jury is still out on whether or not me living in the US is good or bad for the country. You're right I haven't voted in a while, but that didn't seem to be much of a factor in the last election anyway. It's easy to be aggressive and opinionated when you don't log in, isn't it? One day when you grow up and grow a spine you might find the guts to log in and then we'll be able to discuss this in greater detail since I'll be able to take you seriously. (reply to this comment)

From someone Thursday, March 13, 2003, 11:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I have EVERY right to lecture Mr. EXpatriot Pompous. At least I vote yearly! And at least I reside in the US and am involved in my community and actually DO something to for the health of democracy. I am proud to be an American and my life and activities prove it.(reply to this comment)

From Ian Friday, March 14, 2003, 19:43 (Agree/Disagree?) So you think that voting yearly (I guess for the local high school president or prom queen, I wasn't aware of any other annual elections) has contributed to the health of democracy and freedom.  So basically if an opinion can be squeezed into a check box on a pre-printed form it is valid?  Otherwise we are obviously second class citizens with no rights to opinions or freedoms of speech? My family has been living in a foriegn nation for over 20 years.  Nearly every piece of high tech equipment that the military uses has at least one moving part built by them.  I have more dead relatives from foreign military campaigns than I have living relatives.  And yes, I don't vote either.  I don't like the choices. If your "community involvement" and annual voting activities validate your citizenship than perhaps I fought for the wrong country. "...another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From Regi Saturday, March 15, 2003, 13:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Personally, I think that voting is VERY important for the health of any democracy. It is unfortunate that many people, particularily younger people, do not get out and vote biannually. Local elections, those for governor, or the house representatives and senate, are as important as presidential elections. However, it is not only voting that is important, civic engagement is as well. By "civic engagement" I mean consistent involvement through volunteer work or leadership in the local community. I would also add that it means being aware of the issues and not simply voting for a party. Btw, in some places they hold municipal elections yearly. Of course, there is usually very poor turnout for these. For that reason cities have bonds etc. voted on during the general (biannual) elections. I have gone to the polls in November for the last three consecutive years, and I did not vote for a prom queen, Ian. In 2000, there was the presidential elections. In 2001, I voted for mayor and on municipal bonds. An in 2002, I voted for governor and for house and senate reps among many others. As most of you, I grew up all over the world. I lived in countries whose governments where corrupt and horrid. For this reason, I want to not only see the spread of democracy in the world, but also the healthy existence of one of the world's greatest democracies. A fine post by Regi. (reply to this comment)

From Ian Saturday, March 15, 2003, 14:39 (Agree/Disagree?) That wasn't my point.  Voting is an important right but it is not the ultimate validation of a persons patriocy. Even the founding fathers of the US new that mass public voting was not the final answer to assuring freedom, so we have the electoral college as a back up. I disagree strongly with your definition of "civic engagement".  What if we disagree with our local community, what if they are all zombies, or corporate borgs that only come out of their pre-fabbed homes to shop at franchise stores?  What if we voted for Gore along with the majority of the rest of the country but the neo-conservative elite was able to push in their own man despite our "free" election?  What if we fought and bled for freedom but didn't like coffee so we snorted coke instead (and now we can't vote at all)? My definition of freedom is not having the words "civic engagement" in my vocabulary.  The strong are free. And the meek shall inherit the shit. (Ian 3:16)   "...another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 12:31 (Agree/Disagree?) What I mean is you have no right to discuss details of my life until you register an ID on this site and post under it. I contribute to life in the US very directly, but I'm not going to get into it with you because I don't appreciate nameless, spineless spectres pointing their fingers at me without even logging in. You can claim you contribute to your community, but you can't prove it, and you certainy aren't contributing to America by shouting down it's defenders from the cozy confines of spineless anonymity. I mean it, register a name, use it, or be ignored by me until you do.  (reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 13, 2003, 12:56 (Agree/Disagree?) PJ, enough already. You are not the person who decides what people have a "right" to do here. I am considering requiring registration for comments, but for now the policy of this site is that participants are not required to log in to engage in a discussion. If you wish to ignore someone/something, please feel free. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 13:09 (Agree/Disagree?) OK Jules, I'm pissed (as in off, not as in drunk) so I'll say some things I may regret later, but: WRONG. I do decide who has the right to discuss my life with ME. Because unless I participate it's not a discussion, it's ranting; as in the difference between monologue and dialogue. All I was threatening was to ignore the "person", you can read so you know that. Can you imagine what kind of a site you'd have if I never logged in? what if I pretended to be a small group of sarcastic arrogant bastards (instead of just one) and went around picking on people personally every time I ran out of answers for their arguments on other topics? (reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 13, 2003, 13:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Read the home page. "Pull up a chair and stay awhile -- Browse, read, rant, write, whatever." If you have an issue with a policy here, take that up with me. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 13:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Nobody's challenging anybody's right to rant I said discuss WITH ME. I am aware that my own participation is the only kind I can withhold. And when have I ever hesitated to take up any issue I had with anybody? If I have a problem with you I guarantee you'll hear about it from me first. There are some rights that when exercised constitute being an asshole and I don’t think it infringes on anybody’s rights to point this out. I don't think anybody is poorly informed enough to consider that I have any say in site policy, if I did this site would be full of pornography. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 13, 2003, 17:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't any of the superior, unlazy races actually work for a living? As a wise man once told me: "Some people are going to be assholes forever, and nothing anybody says to them will change that". PJ, you are what you are, and that's cool. What is irritating is when you dish it out but won't take it. A simple "sorry, I got carried away" would suffice. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 17:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Well if I get a name from the guy I may apologize, but he was the one that started talking about rights, not me. As for you, you just misread my post. I won't apologize to you, but I may forgive you if you ask me nicely. (Just so you know Jules, you have permission to try the whole backhand thing out on me if we ever meet.) (reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 13, 2003, 18:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't need to use my backhand, in cyberspace, developers have the power. Since you don't seem to mind unilateral decisions by people who can make them, I am treating you to a stay in the trailer park, where you can bully people and expound on your racism to your hearts content. Enjoy. (reply to this comment)

From TimR Thursday, March 13, 2003, 19:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Just a suggestion, but what if you started a section for political discussions/arguments? Especially with WW III coming up, I think there may be more of this. The section "Catching Up" is kind of in that category, but I mean something more intended for people to post their pet theory or bizarre viewpoint, with the understanding that it would be debated/attacked and they would have to defend it. You could call it "Fight Club" or maybe "All my Politics"?  I have enjoyed reading a number of off the wall political opinions on this site, while I may not have agreed with everything I read, I generally have had a good time disagreeing with them. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 13, 2003, 20:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that’s a great idea. I agree that debate on these issues is interesting and essential with the current global climate. Would you like to be the editor for this section? I’m playing Impose Sanctions Because We Can because PJ personally pissed me off. I despise bullies, and after having to grin and bear it from arrogant assholes in the Family one too many times, it riles me to see that going on here. When I (and probably he at this point) calm down, we can probably work this out privately. Sorry to everyone else for this. (reply to this comment)

From TimR Thursday, March 13, 2003, 20:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah sure, that would be cool, sort of a digital "Hyde park". Also, as interesting as these political issues are, they are off-topic for this web site, and some people may prefer to discuss Family-related issues in peace. Unlike me, some people actually do like to mind their own business. (Lol)  It's too bad you never got to meet John, despite his endearing abrasiveness he's actually a cool, dependable person. "Beneath that warm, soft exterior beats a heart of stone.." (We got our first system jobs together) (reply to this comment)

From Put this in a pipe Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 09:08 (Agree/Disagree?) "we, as Americans choose to open our minds and learn other languages, understand other cultures, and confess that ours is not the only way of life". Not exactly something Americans are renowned for my friend, while this may be true about your immediate acquaintances, I have to "strongly disagree" with that generalisation.Your comments loudly project your ignorance of Spanish history and inability to understand Spanish culture. I do believe in Americaas a truly great concept, and thanks to sheer fertile land mass she has developed into the superior world power.  However when the pilgrims founded America they took a giant leap into the dark ages culturally. While America was (and rightly so) finding its footing politically and toiling the land European culture steamrolled ahead, while America was free to practise its intolerant religion the foundations of modern thought were taking hold in Europe, while America was importing slaves the renaissance led way to enlightenment. This split in “western civilisation” remains a sub-theme of current cultural perceptions. Don’t forget, the founding fathers of America got on their ship after they had succeeded in forcefully closing The Globe theatre where the greatest plays in the English language were performed for nearly half a century. So if a handful of Americans are seeking to learn and embrace other cultures it is because America as such does not have one. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 10:26 (Agree/Disagree?) It was the same group that founded America that first conceived of the idea of freedom of religion. The ones who stayed behind beheaded the King of England under Cromwell and established a more democratic system. So the concept took time to develop, it's a far cry from the SPANISH inquisition, don't you agree? It took a while, this was an age when slavery was still legal all over Europe, things like equality of races and genders had never even been considered by most, and freedom of religion only meant freedom to choose one of 2 or 3 recognized Christian faiths. Yes we were once less tolerant than we are now, but we nearly singlehandedly birthed and raised the very concept of tolerance itself. (immancipation, sufferage, etc.) I know as well as anyone that America only has about 200 years of history as such and so of course it's not as rich culurally as other countries that go back so much farther, we have no illusions about this. But as far as being a driving force for freedom on a global scale I don't think there is any argument to be made. If it wasn't for the US we'd all be closing our posts with "Heil Hitler" or some such nonsense to avoid suspicion of treason. (reply to this comment)

From Put this in a pipe Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 11:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree this is what you would be taught in an American high school, however as is commonplace throughout the globe, these supremacist notions are based primarily on propaganda rather than fact. I want to keep this discussion on the subject of culture rather than politics or economics but here is a timeline which needs referring to more often the Magna Carta; England, 1215 Bill of Rights; England, 1688 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen; France, 1789 Bill of Rights; United States of America, 1791 The English Bill of Rights already 100+ years old at the time was incorporated into the American Constitution in 1791. As such the majority of American settlers did not flee European law but were (as the majority of immigrants are today) economic immigrants drawn by the prospect of land. The puritans in specific were refugees from the liberal climate of Europeat the time where they lived as a sect shut off from modern culture and in turn were ostracised. My point is that the freedoms that America was founded on were only part of changes that were taking place on a global scale and had been for some time. On a cultural level it is only recently that American arts are beginning to be appreciated outside of America.Spanish culture however, considering its size and history is a far more influential and omnipresent force. (reply to this comment)

From Nan Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 20:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Great Britain doesn't even have a constitution which protects its citizens from the whims of its current political leaders! Hello? Have we forgotten the age of the British Empire? Have we forgotten how they raped the environment and natural resources of a majority of Africa and India? All the crown jewels are stolen loot. Their National Gallery is full of stolen artifacts from all over Egypt, Italy and Greece. They waged war on Europe for years trying to control it and the rest of the world, ask the French. The French did the same during Napoleon. England tried to colonize the world. Those who resisted were shipped off to Australia or deported to America. Your date timeline excludes a lot. It's very biased to say the least. An argument of the civility of the English over Americans is backwards. We’re talking about a long established monarchy for heaven’s sake and a democracy. Look what England did to Scotland and Ireland. The English still won't get out of Northern Ireland. America may be responsible for what our forefathers did to the native Americans, but the English or even the French are not the people to be pointing fingers. The English invented tyranny. Americans have fought wars, but they have never tried to take over the world, unlike the British, French, Italians, Germans or Japanese. (reply to this comment)

From Tankard Saturday, March 15, 2003, 14:11 (Agree/Disagree?) The United Kingdom does of course have a constitution but as pointed out elsewhere in this thread it does not abide in any one document. A constitution is not necessarily an explicit written "Bill of Rights" as per the original US constitution. This is only one of many inaccuracies in your poorly formed diatribe. There are plenty of others, but I'll comment on just one more: Your knowledge of the political situation in Northern Ireland is woefully lacking. The approximate 60% Unionist/Loyalist majority has steadfastly resisted leaving the United Kingdom to become a part of the Republic of Ireland. Note that the Republic of Ireland has relinquished its automatic claim to Northern Ireland previously found in its constitution as part of the negotiations leading to the so-called "Good Friday Agreement". That said, as a British citizen I support the proposed war on Iraq. I suspect that the French and German opposition may be due to a desire to establish an anti-USA pan-European front to support European Union federalist aims.(reply to this comment)

From K Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 08:42 (Agree/Disagree?) There are two types of constitution;written [America] and unwritten [U.k] Good and bad can be argued for them both.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Sunday, March 16, 2003, 17:23 (Agree/Disagree?) The U.S. constitution is a document which cannot be altered by mere vote of the current political leaders in power. It is not like a simple federal act or state law. It controls all laws and possess the power to strike down laws which contravene it. There is a judicial body which exists solely to interpret it. Further, Great Britain has no such document. They refer to a “living constitution” because their political leaders can alter what they chose. There is no real constitution outside of a number of different laws which have been past, which are accorded no particular precedent over others. Further, the Bill of Rights is not the U.S. Constitution. It is a bill which became part of the Constitution. It specifically protects individual rights and outlines types of laws which cannot be created in violation of those rights. “Woefully lacking” is such a great term for the biased stats you claim to represent the political climate in Northern Ireland. Yes, lets oppress an entire race of people, deny them their own vote, jobs and property for hundreds of years based solely on their religion. Then, let’s take a pole of the ruling political party which is responsible for this oppression, and let’s call that a fair estimate of what is really going on in a country. Brilliant logic! Bravo! Let’s not forget that your Loyalist/Unionist Orangemen violated the Geneva Convention. Let’s not forget that Thatcher set up tribunals which sentenced Irish to life in prison without a trial or evidence presented. Let’s not forget that in the 1920’s, not so long ago, when Ireland was fighting for its independence that the British chained prisoners together and blew them up to save bullets. They would also take in prisoners of war only to later execute them. The pictures of some of those Irish soldiers who were executed after being taken prisoner hang in Dublin Castle to this day. Oh, what about a few hundred years earlier? What about Cromwell? He lodged his horses in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin. He tortured priests to find the location of hidden fonts. Yeah, the British Empire did a world of good if you look at history from the prospective of the British ruling class. And there’s no time to even mention Africa and India, especially India. (reply to this comment)

From Tankard Friday, March 21, 2003, 17:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Biased statistics? As I said, 60/40 is an approximation, see this URL for authoritative statistics (taken from the latest census, in 2001): http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland Note that although the religious split is something like 54/44 the political split is less close, with a significant minority of Roman Catholics broadly supporting the retention of the Union. You continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the political situation in Northern Ireland throughout your reply, with plenty of spurious accusations and no facts to back them up. The Orangemen are not a government, military or paramilitary organisation, so in what way exactly did they manage to violate the Geneva Convention and when? When you refer to "tribunals" I suspect you mean the use of internment camps, such as the USA is currently using to hold Al Qaeda/Taliban suspects. The use of these was deemed necessary then by the British government to control terrorism, just as it has been deemed necessary by the US government now for the same purpose. Whether it is an appropriate and useful technique is debatable. What this has to do with Margaret Thatcher I don't know, seeing as internment in Northern Ireland was halted in 1975, several years before the Conservatives gained power and Thatcher became prime minister. Cromwell lodged his horses in a cathedral...and? Have I missed something? This is a crime against humanity how? Executions were carried out during the suppression of a terrorist uprising? This is shocking in what way? Seriously, get a handle on the situation before ranting on about it again.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Friday, March 21, 2003, 21:54 (Agree/Disagree?) YAWN!!! I'm talking about Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers. Get a clue!!!(reply to this comment)

From Tankard Saturday, March 22, 2003, 05:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Bobby Sands was an active member of a terrorist organisation, the Provisional IRA. He was convicted of several serious offences in relation to this. He died in prison after going on a "hunger strike" in an attempt to be reclassified as a "prisoner of war" rather than an ordinary criminal. Again, your ignorance of this subject (Northern Ireland and its troubled politics) is manifestly clear.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Saturday, March 22, 2003, 11:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I was almost baited into responding before I lapsed into coma from your tired rhetoric. It's not even novel. Bobby Sands was elected to Parliament. Funny how the British have actually diluted the minds of those too young to remember. Funny how even the Vatican stepped in and many countries in the rest of the world agreed that the treatment of the hunger strikers was a violation of international law. Funny that conviction means one had a trial by a tribunal, of which none of the hunger strikers did. You think that anyone who doesn't buy your pre-packaged propaganda is ignorant. Snooze! Try coming up with something original for once. Try thinking for yourself, not what the papers feed you. Have you ever even been to Ireland? Does anything you have to say come from an original thought not taught you by mainstream British media? Have you ever stood on the spots where the battles for Irish independence were fought in 1921? Ever read about the war and its battles? Have you ever studied Irish history in Ireland? Been to Trinity University? Ever toured the troubled areas in Belfast? Seen the terrorist wall murals that are over 10 feet tall and 10 feet wide? Probably not! Then you would know that they depict Unionist terrorists with AK-47s and read “We will never accept a united Ireland.” There are no similar Catholic wall murals. Theirs read “God bless our POWs.” I’ve studied in both Britain and Ireland and am here to say what you spout is old, tired, unoriginal, biased, propaganda which only someone who has no idea what has really occurred in Ireland for the last several hundred years would even begin to try to push over on someone as legitimate. Try actually learning something about Northern Ireland, its people and history and that of Ireland itself, because it is tied together, before you come to me with your unoriginal thought which I could have read for myself in Britain’s trash tabloids. Try learning about the “convictions” of the hunger strikers. Try defining what a trial is meant to be, then compare it to the mockery of what those boys received before you come here with words like “conviction.” Look up the ages of some of those boys rotting in prison for life without having received a trial. You’ll find some were 14 years old when put away for life for simply being suspected of sympathizing. Try standing on their graves in Belfast. Speak to people who’ve have actually lived in Northern Ireland all their lives. Visit Ireland. Study its history. Then come back to me with your accusations of ignorance. How many of Ireland’s counties have you visited? How many Northern Irish homes have you stayed in? How many families who lived there all their lives have you sat down with and listened to their stories and what they endured, the war, the racism, the prejudice, what their children endured, all the while being ruled by a select minority which purports to represent them while oppressing the majority. I’ve done all these things before I formed my opinions on the matter. My family happens to be Scottish, who were unfortunately those who England gave land in Ireland hundreds of years ago in an attempt to colonize a country which didn’t belong to them. They gave land to Scottish settlers who would colonize Ireland, land which wasn’t England’s to give. So, my natural sympathies should lie with the Unionist, as they were originally Scottish. If you’d ever been to Northern Ireland you would see the Scottish flag flown over the Unionist areas and painted over their terrorist wall murals. I, however, took the time to actually learn more about the subject before accepting what was feed me or what would have been my uneducated tendency to believe given my ancestry. Try doing the same, Tankard, before you come here with your hypocritical accusations of ignorance. (reply to this comment)

From Tankard Saturday, March 22, 2003, 13:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I lived, studied and worked in Northern Ireland for 7 years (I relocated to England a couple of years ago to study at University). I have good friends from both sides of the religious and political divide. I do not pretend to be an expert on the exceedly complex issue of Northern Ireland's troubled history but one doesn't need to be to spot your outrageous bigotry. You mention "Unionist terrorists", a term which I have never heard used. Perhaps you mean "loyalist" terrorists, but again, this highlights your ignorance. "Look up the ages of some of those boys rotting in prison for life without having received a trial". You are really talking out of your arse on this one. Can you name one of these individuals? Seeing as there aren't any, this will prove difficult. In any case, you obviously don't realise that almost all terrorist prisoners (from both sides) have been released following the implementation of the Belfast Agreement (aka The Good Friday Agreement). The exceptions are those who have reoffended or committed their offences post agreement. You mention murals that "depict Unionist terrorists with AK-47s" and claim their are no equivalent Catholic (by which I presume you mean Republican) murals. I can assure you that this is utter bullshit. Ever driven through South Armagh (e.g. Crossmaglen)? West Belfast? Any other number of staunchly Republican areas? If you have, as I have, then you would know better. Your talk about people "ruled by a select minority which purports to represent them while oppressing the majority". I see you have chosen to be wilfully ignorant when you can look up the statistics for the political split yourself (such as those I quoted from the most recent census of Northern Ireland, conducted in 2001) and see that the clear majority of the population of Northern Ireland strongly desire to remain a part of the United Kingdom. You appear to be neither knowledgable or even-handed in your treatment of this subject. You would do yourself and everyone else a favour by refraining from ignorant and bigoted comment on this issue.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Saturday, March 22, 2003, 15:06 (Agree/Disagree?) You're simply a hypocritical idiot! I have photographs of those wall murals from all over Belfast. There are no Catholic terrorist murals. They never existed! Seeing as the residents of the Catholic neighborhoods lived, worked and attended school under army occupation. I have photographs of the tanks patrolling a school and bus stop with children on the corner. Many of those boys, children, who were arrested and imprisoned without trial in the 70's died in prison, and there are plenty more still rotting there. I have a photograph of a mural with many of their names listed and the length of their prison terms, mostly life, beside them. Shockingly, many of their prison terms were longer than they had been alive at the time they were sentenced. When I returned to Ireland in 1999, I remember that it was the first time ever that a member of the SF had been allowed a seat in Parliament. But, the Unionist/Loyalist, whatever you want to call them, Unionist is a Scottish term, walked out the day they were to be seated. Like spoiled children, they did not want to share there long held control. Those ridiculous statistics you quote represent nothing of the years of oppression that area and all of Ireland has suffered. It’s not even necessary to look at how skewed a pool from which the sample came to know that. You think you can simply disregard hundreds of years of oppression with some ridiculous 2001 poll? What happened in the 1970’s under Thatcher cannot ever be undone. What happened in the 1920’s cannot, either. I don’t have to use your terms for things to know that. Res ipsa loquitor! The thing speaks for itself! Some little sampling now, does not undo history. That would be like me trying to claim the U.S. did not oppress and murder and pillage the Native Americans by throwing out statistics of some little poll on what a group of white, suburban, middle-class prep-school kids in New Mexico think. Further, it doesn’t matter if I call those who committed the acts Confederalist, Unionist, English settlers, Pioneers or Americans. The acts were still committed by a group now collectively known as the U.S. The same is true for Ireland and always will be. (reply to this comment)

From Tankard Sunday, March 23, 2003, 07:27 (Agree/Disagree?) It seems to me that you are being wilfully ignorant. You claim: "There are no Catholic terrorist murals. They never existed!" The following URLs link to images of Republican terrorist wall murals (and signs): http://www.geocities.com/republicanmurals/bal4.JPG http://irelandsown.net/IRAWall.jpg http://irelandsown.net/nodecommission..jpg http://irelandsown.net/Snipersign.jpg http://irelandsown.net/victory.jpg http://irelandsown.net/warrenpoint.jpg http://irelandsown.net/saoirse3.jpg http://irelandsown.net/armaghb.gif http://irelandsown.net/camlough.gif There are plenty more like the above, but this should be more than sufficent to show that your claim is simply untrue. I again challenge you to name a single person who has been permanently imprisoned without trial in Northern Ireland. Margaret Thatcher became prime minister following the Conservative victory in the general election of May 1979, so your statement "What happened in the 1970’s under Thatcher cannot ever be undone" really makes no sense. Before the 1979 election a Labour government was in place and Margaret Thatcher would have had no government position at all. As far as members of Sinn Fein being allowed seats in Parliament: Sinn Fein MPs have consistently refused to swear the oath of allegiance to the Crown and for that reason they cannot sit in the House of Commons (although they are allowed use of the office facilities and so on). I believe the US Senate and Congress both require a similar oath of allegiance from its representatives. Unionist MPs did not walk out of Parliament (the House of Commons in Westminster), although if I remember correctly some Unionist assembly members (remember that there are several Unionist parties) did walk out of the Stormont assembly in Belfast after refusing to meet directly with Sinn Fein. They did this because in their view Sinn Fein are the politcal representatives of a terrorist organisation, the IRA. Finally, you continue to spout nonsense and bigotry. The historical events leading to the tragic sitution in Northern Ireland are very complex, ignorant attitudes like yours have continued to flame the fires of the conflict. I have a lot of respect for the USA, but on the issue of Northern Ireland I fear that many of its citizens are not adequately informed. Indeed, much funding for Republican terrorism has come from within the US (although following the events of September 11 I believe this has changed) and has almost certainly directed contributed to the problem.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Sunday, March 23, 2003, 23:40 (Agree/Disagree?) There may be some IRA wall murals of that sort. I was there in 1997 and was given tours of the troubled areas by life long residents of Belfast. I was told repeatedly that their were no terrorist wall murals equivalent to those I saw which openly depicted the Orangemen/Loyalist terrorists. Things may have changed. At the time, the Catholic areas were patrolled by British troops. There was a war going on, and the IRA was very hidden and its sympathizers very quiet. Yes, there were churches in Boston and Chicago were one could give donations to the SF, at least there was in 1997. The sentiment is often fueled by Irish ancestry and having first hand knowledge in ones family of the atrocities which occurred in Ireland this past century. Further, as a country which fought for its independence its easy to sympathize with those still doing so. Now, Thatcher, nothing good, in my mind, ever came from this woman. She may have been in power in the early 80's rather than the 70's, but that really makes little difference in what she did when in power. She contributed to much of the violence. I'll dig up my photos of Belfast. I know I have at least one in which a list of boys names are painted along side their prison terms. (reply to this comment)

From Tankard Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 16:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Perhaps your tourguide was not exactly unbiased, which would explain you only being shown the "positive" Nationalist wall murals and militant Loyalist ones. The Orangemen (Orange Order) are a Protestant religious/cultural organisation (perhaps something along the lines of the Freemasons, although without the secrecy) and have no links to terrorism that I am aware of. There was an unconnected Loyalist terrorist organisation calling itself "The Orange Volunteers" for a short period, which you may have confused the Orange Order with. As far as a struggle for independence goes, the majority of the population of Northern Ireland (at this time and since the formation of Northern Ireland) wishes to remain a part of the United Kingdom. Of course, a very large minority does not, and it is very possible that within our lifetimes the situation will change (due to population changes). But the fact remains that, at present, the majority does not want to be a part of the Republic of Ireland and therefore describing the situation as a "struggle for independence" is not really accurate. On the prisoner issue: upon conviction, lengthy prison terms are often handed down. However, don't forget that in the UK a "life sentence" is 20 years. Full terms are rarely served (except in rare cases, such as notorious serial killers), with most prisoners on life sentences being eligible for parole considerably less than 20 years. Sentences are also often "concurrent" rather that "consectutive", meaning that 5 (or 1, 63 or 125) life sentences concurrent equates to just 20 years rather that 100 years (which would be the case if the 5 life sentences were consecutive). It's all a moot point anyway since the mass prisoner release following the Belfast Agreement.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 20:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Tankard, I think you make a very good point about this not being a "struggle for independence," seeing as how the majority want to be a part of the UK.  The Basque terrorists are very similar - a small deluded minority that has basically become a very ruthless mafia.  Apologists like Nan need to get it through their heads that terrorism is evil, no matter how noble or popular the cause.  People who bomb innocent civilians deserve to rot in hell.  Calling them "freedom fighters" is an insult to people like Che Guevara and Gandhi (reply to this comment)

From NIrelandResident Saturday, March 22, 2003, 15:36 (Agree/Disagree?) If I believed you could I call my two eyes liars? Should I also block my two ears from what I've heard and then believe you? I can't deny my senses Nan, and what you write is not what I have seen or heard or read. (reply to this comment)

From Saturday, March 22, 2003, 15:03 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From Saturday, March 22, 2003, 14:43 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, March 14, 2003, 19:12 (Agree/Disagree?) The situation in Northern Ireland is much more complicated than the English just "getting out".  (reply to this comment)

From Put this in a pipe Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 08:38 (Agree/Disagree?) This is needless defensiveness Nan, and missing the point entirely. The timeline comes directly from a (American) history of human rights document, please reread my post and realise that I am not arguing the civility of English over Americans but rather that in the 14-18 century we were one and the same and when Americans became Americans most of what you refer to was in the past no matter what side of the Atlantic you chose to reside. Had I been a European at the time I would have been on the first ship, not because I lacked civil liberties – but because Europe was terribly overcrowded, crime levels were out of control and there just wasn’t enough to go around, why do you think they were colonising?? The governance America came to establish was a manifestation of changes in the way people thought at the time, the renaissance, enlightenment, and the declarations listed above are all essential steps in the evolution of the way of life all western societies enjoy today. If this is too complex or too broad a notion for you too comprehend by all means refrain from the pointless “my country is better than yours” line. (reply to this comment)

From Nan Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 12:50 (Agree/Disagree?) “my country is better than yours”  Who are you quoting?  Not me. "defensiveness"  Is this even a word?  "needless"?  By who's standards?  Clearly yours!  Stick to the issues here.  You pick and chose which dates to list.  You skew the facts, and then you resort to personal attacks.  Brilliant logic. (reply to this comment)

From Patt Thursday, March 13, 2003, 04:40 (Agree/Disagree?) de·fen·sive adj Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one's shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego. de·fenhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif" width=4 align=bottom>sive·ness n (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 13:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, considering the short history of  the US, relative to other countries, our culture is the most influential and omnipresent force in the entire world. I mean, going from a handful of dissident colonists to what we are today, THE superpower, the dsidain and envy of other countries isn't at all surprising. I'm not saying that what is will always be as is, tomorrow could change everything; however, so far, we have "mainfested our destiny", and then some. Seriously, who can deny the overpowering influential and omnipresent force of Hollywood? Regards, AnthonyEnjoyingAmericanWhileTheGoingIsGood (reply to this comment)

From Put this in a pipe Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 08:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Hollywood sir, is worthy of as much cultural merit as a baked potato. It is a product, no different than a can of Coke, to be consumed and generate revenue.I’m going to withdraw from this line of discussion as it has turned into “my country is better than yours” drivel which is frankly quite boring. A discussion on culture with a global perspective, free from nationalist views would be welcome but I don’t think this the appropriate site. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 22:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Let's see, you're making it very difficult for me to tell you that "my country is better than yours" since I don't even know what country you're from; please make it easy for me to be ______ ______. My calling attention to the global cultural impact of Hollywoodwas not an endorsment of Hollywood, it was simply a factual observation. I despise much of what Hollywood produces; however, this does not prevent me from noting its influence. I'm quiet fond of European, Australian & Asian cinema, and the few African films I saw were incredibly grand, in a word: awesome. In fact, we Americans were not the first filmmakers, but we have taken the art of filmmaking, put it in our Hollywood pipe, and smoked the hell out of it. "It is a product, no different than a can of Coke, to be consumed and generate revenue." The same can certainly be said of the Mona Lisa painting by Leonardo da Vinci, (eagerly awaiting hyterical outrage and vehemnt denunciations). I don't completely disagree with your statement above; however, I do in part. I mean, really, how is a film, (some DVDs with interactive CD-ROMs) anymore consumed than an old canvas? I don't particularly care for the "celebrity phenomenon", but I do hold in high regard the value of cinema and Hollowyood's contributions to it. I watched a film the other day from 1930, and was surprised at some of the terms and body language used back then. My point is, films are a great historical chronicle of sorts. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 22:13 (Agree/Disagree?) endorsement*(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 10:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Separating cultural and nationalist views would be like trying to take the salt out of the ocean. I think it's reasonable to expect that each of us is going to like our own country the best, we've both said as much and I think we can move on now. I think it's unfair of you to want to withhold your definition of art while rejecting someone else’s. A baked potato is not without cultural significance, and is closely tied to the culture and history of Ireland, remember? Also a Coke can, while being a product is also a work of art which an artist was well paid for designing. (Why are you always thinking about food?) Hollywood and MTV have had profound social and cultural impact on the world we live in, no country in the world will ever recover from their influence, however banal they may be. How old does an art form have to be for the purpose of this discussion?   (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll try to keep that in mind when I hear Ja Rule groaning everywhere I go.(reply to this comment)

From Wendy Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Baked potatos rock!!(reply to this comment)

From Nick Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Wendy, Wendy's has some good baked potatos. And they are only a buck! Suuuuweet!(reply to this comment)

From Artist Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 13:43 (Agree/Disagree?) ooo I'm enjoying this thread but art vs design is a whole other debate. You wont find many artists who consider commercial design art and hollywood is definately not classified under art whereas film might subjectively be. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 22:17 (Agree/Disagree?) "hollywood is definately not classified under art whereas film might subjectively be." What is Hollywood, if not film? (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 14:19 (Agree/Disagree?) The ones that get paid for it consider it art and so do the people paying them. (Sometimes) I don't think they're comparing themselves with Rembrandt, that's why I ask how old an art form has to be to qualify for consideration. I think it's clear that artistic talent is an important quality for graphic design, maybe not all of it is very attractive, but there are some pretty crappy oil paintings out there too. It's still art, it just sucks. On the Hollywood mention, I assume he means all American films, whether or not they were produced in Hollywood, and I'm afraid even some Hollywood films are very artistic. Photography is clearly art, painting is art, and music is art, so why wouldn't pictures that move, talk and sing be art? Maybe animated movies are art but the others aren't? Come on, movies are art and you know it, just like plays are art. However, the fellow never said it wasn't art, he said it wasn't worthy of cultural merit, or at least no more so than baked potatoes. I guess he had a bag of cultural merit and he’s down to the last one and trying to decide between Hollywoodand a baked potato… I really don’t care what he does with it. I’m not even sure what “being worthy of cultural merit” is or how to go about it exactly, but if it has anything to do with cultural impact as far as people thinking, acting, dressing ,talking and voting differently because of it,  Hollywood’s got the baked potato beat hands down. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 13:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I am aware of this, in fact this thread started with my lamenting the fact that “Spanish culture however, considering its size and history is a far more influential and omnipresent force.” Well said, and I might add a negative force. I wouldn’t know about American high schools and what they do and don’t teach I don’t think many on this site had the chance to attend, but as for your Magna Carta, here’s what the British Library of the World’s Knowledge (www.bl.uk)  TARGET="_new">http://www.bl.uk/">www.bl.uk) ; has to say about it: Magna Carta is often thought of as the corner-stone of liberty and the chief defence against arbitrary and unjust rule in England. In fact it contains few sweeping statements of principle, but is a series of concessions wrung from the unwilling King John by his rebellious barons in 1215. However, Magna Carta established for the first time a very significant constitutional principle, namely that the power of the king could be limited by a written grant. Well whoopdy-doo, Cromwell (a puritan) limited it even further by cutting the bastard’s head off, but not before the Americans limited it even further by going off and getting their OWN country. All of these declarations and bills of rights are great and all, but they were no more influential than Hamurrabi’s code that predated all of them by quite a bit, or even the Roman legal concept of the right to face your accuser. (Which many Latin American countries have still not adopted) In spite of all the documents you mentioned, slaves were still bought, sold, imported and exported all over Europe and women had no vote (when there was voting at all) until much later. I think “ostracized” is a bit mild a term for what the puritans had to deal with, but it doesn’t matter, I’m not going to get into all of that. And if we incorporated some of England’s legal documents (I am not sure of this – but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) then I think that is at least understandable, considering that’s where we came from and that’s where our original ideas of government came from. Like abusive parents you swear you’ll never be like, you pick up some traits whether you want to or not. As far as American arts being appreciated outside America, this is neither here nor there as one doesn't have to look very closely at American art to see that it was not meant to appeal to a foreign audience, and its international impact is incidental and generally accidental as well. (I assume we're talking about music and motion pictures) Generally speaking it is the aim of the MPAA to keep new material exclusively on the domestic market for as long as possible, since once exported the products are quickly pirated and distributed by illegal means throughout the known universe, indeed so slight is the world's appreciation for our "art" that they steal millions of copies of it every day. (I am not talking about file-sharing, I LOOOOOVE file sharing) Unlike other countries with music and motion picture industries, we are not dependant on foreign markets at all, our own population of 280 million is a big enough audience, though we do seem to buy a lot of foreign music and films. (reply to this comment)

From K Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 08:53 (Agree/Disagree?) What about the  comedy ?   I personally have only really liked Fraiser up untill now.(reply to this comment)

From Aita. Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 06:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't believe you said this!! & you even married someone of this so called "inferior" culture. WTF is your problem!! You are the kind which give Americans a bad name around the world.(reply to this comment)

From Ian Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Believe it sister. It wasn't him that gave the Americans a bad name, it was people like me not to mention all of my grandparents, uncles, great uncles and many more who died fighting the Japanese and their attempt to conquer the world. But I guess it doesn't matter that the Japanese were wandering mainland China, Korea and many other neighboring counties randomly killing and raping whoever they pleased becuase it's so fucking nuevo cool to be anti-American. If you want to talk about a race of people who felt that everyone else was inferior then let us talk about the WWII era Japanese mindset. I hate to bring up movies but you might enjoy "Tears of the Sun" unless of course you think that all of the worlds countries are "civilized" and that we should just love everyone.   Semper Fidelis   ".....another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From Nan Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 20:28 (Agree/Disagree?) War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety is a miserable creature and will never be free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stuart Mill For all those who sleep safely at night on your watch and those men and women like you, Ian, those who have the freedom to speak out and complain because you protect those freedoms, those who do not realize there are groups of terrorists who would kill them given the oppotunity just because of their nationality, let me say thank you on their behalf. Your sacrifices do not go unnoticed. My son will know a safer world rid of terrorism, hopefully, due to your labors in the war on terror. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 21:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Nan, you're right about war, and it does seem like in this case it's the best solution, although a far from perfect one.  I have a question for you though:  Why do you think terrorists attack the US? (reply to this comment)

From Nan Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 08:28 (Agree/Disagree?) "They hate us because we have cable."(reply to this comment)

From JoeH Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Nan, for all your passionate ranting on the subject, I was hoping you would be able to offer some critical insight.  Once again, you dissapoint.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 18:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, would you not know a joke if it slapped you in your face?  Too blinded?  See the qoutes?  The one who made that statement was David Letterman.  Joe, do take a frigging vacation.  You're so used to banging your righteous anti-American sympathy drum that you fail to see humor.  Some just want to fight, and won't be satisfied until they've provoked one.(reply to this comment)

From JoeH Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 19:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I know it's a joke, it's just not funny.(reply to this comment)

From JoeH Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 19:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Here's one that is:  Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences." (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 08:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Generally we consider terrorists those who for whatever reason attack civilian targets rather than military ones. So the answer to your question is "because they are terrorists". (reply to this comment)

From mex Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I forget who it was that said, "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 08:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it might have been Berg who said that, be careful about forgetting who you're quoting. (reply to this comment)

From mex Thursday, March 13, 2003, 11:23 (Agree/Disagree?) First it was not Berg who said that, and second I would NEVER quote anything Berg said. Tom Schinder: "Over just the past few days several "international experts", leaders in academia, and reporters have repeated a high-brow notion that is generally accepted as fact among the "educated" sect; "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Watch the news for a day or two and I'm sure it will be repeated. I pose the question here: is it really the truth? Or is it just simply another leftist assumption taken for granted in academia and the media that puts us on the slippery slope to anti-Americanism?" I have not been able to find where the quote originated but the  point I was trying to make is that the difference between terrorism and “freedom fighting” is one of perspective. When the actions are in my interest, it’s insurgency; against me, it’s terrorism. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 12:47 (Agree/Disagree?) OK, you got me, I could swear I heard Berg say something like that though, he was always droning on about who the "real" terrorists are, etc. A lot of things are subjective, one man's whore is another man's wife, etc. viewpoints differ, but sometimes there is a concrete definition, like what I said that: "Generally we consider terrorists those who for whatever reason attack civilian targets rather than military ones." Bombing a hospital or an office building while not even representing any particular government or population is terrorism whether it's done in the name of Islam as in the case of 9/11 or whether it's done as an act of "patriotism" to "keep America free" as was the case with Timothy McVeigh.  (reply to this comment)

From Not Quite Thursday, March 13, 2003, 08:24 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/oct/26ny4.htm http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/oct/26ny4.htm">http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/oct/26ny4.htm> I guess Colin Powell was quoting Berg too? (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 09:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Yep, Berg ad Powell go waaaaay back. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:22 (Agree/Disagree?) okay, so why do they target the US?(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:46 (Agree/Disagree?) You mean why do they attack American civilian targets? Because our military installations are too well defended. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm disappointed in you too John.  I'm sure you have something more intelligent to say on this matter.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Poor Joe!  He's "disappointed."  He thinks other should have "more to offer."  Condescension does not a scholar make. (reply to this comment)

From curious Thursday, March 13, 2003, 11:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, tell us please Dr. Pompous. Where are you degrees??? You act like you know so much, when really you are as ignorant as the unattached white trash of this country.(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 12:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Can we stick to the issues please? Unless you're considering dating me, (no thank you) then my personal attributes are completely beside the point. If you think something I said is wrong, lets hear about that. Comparing me or anyone else with trailer trash sheds no light on any of the issues being discussed. "You act like you know so much" Well so far you're safe from being accused of acting like you know alot. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Thursday, March 13, 2003, 12:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll show you mine if you show me yours. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 16:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I have had a lot of intelligent things to say that you still haven't responded to. Get crackin', grammar boy. This particular line of questioning seems pointed and you're obviously waiting to spring some revelation on us all when we give the "wrong" answer. Understanding the motivations of terrorists is not as pressing as the need to hunt them down and kill them. Having a bad attitude is not in the same ballpark as hijacking a passenger plane and flying it into an office building. (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:44 (Agree/Disagree?) why do they burn the American flag? Or dance in the streets chanting "down with America"? Probably all for the same reason. Contrary to what most of the people in this argument think,not everyone is so in love with America folks. (reply to this comment)

From Nan Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 21:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Flag burning is done in America because of the freedom of expression on which the country is founded. Beautiful irony that the very institution being condemned is what allows for the protest itself. "Not everyone is so in love with" a radical Muslim terrorist, either. Like to see what some militarily and economically weaker countries would do if the U.S. pulled out its peace-keeping troops. Whose flag would be burned then? (reply to this comment)

From Aita. Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 12:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Who are you to say what is civilized & what is not? Americans can be some of the most uncivilized people on the planet. They are rude, conceited & arrogant & not in a good way. Their so called "civilization" is only some centuries old compared to some Asian or European or even African civilizations, which are thousands of years old. So who is anyone to say who is civilized & who is not? No, I don't think "that we should just love everyone". But i do think we should respect everyone's culture. People should stop complaining about other cultures. If you don't like it, then get out. No one is making you live there. But you can't expect people to change to please your whims. I love travelling, & I love seeing & living other experiences & cultures & I hate when people go to a foreing country expecting the country to accomodate them. Fine, so PJ doesn't like the Latin mentality, then he should leave or shut up & learn to live with it. He is a visitor in that country & he should be the one accomodating to them, & not the other way around. I live in a Latin country also, I too get fed up sometimes with the way people think & act, but that's my problem, not their problem. They are in their country, & they have a right to live & act however they want.(reply to this comment)

From Nan Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 20:37 (Agree/Disagree?) "Americans can be some of the most uncivilized people on the planet. They are rude, conceited & arrogant & not in a good way. Their so called "civilization" is only some centuries old compared to some Asian or European or even African civilizations, which are thousands of years old." This is stereotyping and racism and pure ignorance. Trying to classify an entire country's character is ridiculous! Further, as I said before, the U.S. has never attempted to take over the world, as the Germans, the English, the French, the Italians and the Japanese have. A majority of the wars the U.S. has fought this century were to free another country or its citizens. We have lost hundreds of thousands of young men and women who died fighting for the freedom of another country's citizens. There is Somalia, Bosnia, Korea, Kuwait, not to mention WW I and WW II!!! (reply to this comment)

From K. Monday, March 31, 2003, 17:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I dont' see how you can call America's invasion against Iraq, with the lack of U.N 's support{Didn't wait to find out}, a fight for their freedom, like we really want nothing else.{  when there's a murder you look for a person with "motive".In my opinion The west's motive is standard of living and not loosing the oil.The East's :if anyone brings up the Suicide bombers and Terrorists, is simply Justice and Equality.}The people of Iraq have succsesfully thrown out the British empire, before falling again, to the serpent with two heads;the other head, Saddam. Twice they rose and we didnt help.The bigger plan it seems was for us to divide and rule. Let them do it for us. Britan and the U.S and France sold weapon's to both Iran and Iraq during the war. They were angry about the invasion of kuwait as it is stratigically placed in the "mouth" and would be important to keep as a base. I bet they're kicking themselves now at H.C, as Turkey saw the exodos of the U.S military and nuclear base,brokered by J.F Kennedy in the deal with Russia to halt  the cold war. {in exchange the Russians would leave Cuba.} If the U.S had no other motive than gain for themselves,then why are they only giving building contracts to American companies when and if we "win".? It seems clear the U.N needs to take over, of which the U.S are a part of, not incharge of!..Along with other nations!  It's easier to deal with some one who out and out states that they want the oil, the lifestyle,the fucker's all dead and Rah for the KKK.at least they are honest. It's highly annoying ,to make up a reason why you're really doing something and  then not even be interrested in the answer or opposing argument.(reply to this comment)

From k. Monday, March 31, 2003, 17:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Then when Bush stands there, the way he talks, is often  seen as, inflamitory! Like it's some film. Good Vs Evil.  (reply to this comment)

From Gabe Thursday, March 13, 2003, 14:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I would just like to say about the fact you bring up about the US not trying to take over the world. I think it is very naive of you not to realise that the US is an empire. Granted, I have not lived in the US since I was very young, therefore I do not know how Americans see themselves or their place in the world. I have however seen the evidence that contradicts what you said about it not being an empire. The US has bases in most of the West European countries plus the Mideast and Asia, it's influence is pretty much unparalled in the history of the world. I think the difference is that they do not rule directly but by proxy. I am a British/American, I have mainly lived in the UK though, so I understand the problems that come with being from the last superpower on the planet, some people here dislike the US simply because it is so powerful. They see their lives being so dominated by American culture and products that they feel threatened, (even though they enjoy all the trappings of that lifestyle). Still as the US is so powerful it will attract criticisim just because that is what history has taught us about empires. I found that people like to support an underdog as well, which is why when I lived in Scotland for a few years I used to have to argue that they were part of and enjoyed the benefits of empire while it lasted, some of the greatest empire builders were Scottish. Now, when Britain is just another European country they come out with all this Braveheart (which is historicaly incorrect) nonsense and go on about how they were victims and not willing participants. Ok, I will concede that the English did a great deal of wrong, but the Scots were not lily white either. I am of course using the above as an example of how powerful nations are percieved when at the height of there power and after the power wanes. I think what Americans have to ask themselves right now is how they feel they will be viewed further down the line of history, the British empire did a lot of good as well as bad, it depends on who you talk to which one comes out on top. As far as the impending war now in iraq, if that is not further empire building I don't know what else it is. Still, if it makes the world a better place then they should go ahead and invade, if not then we may be talking about the demise of the US empire in the future and this may be a defining moment.   (reply to this comment)

From Nan Sunday, March 16, 2003, 16:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I lived and studied in Scotland during college on a scholarship for students of Scottish descent. I took such courses as British National Identity, Scottish History and Scottish Archeology. What the English did to Scotland for thousands of years was nothing short of atrocities of war. One does not need to learn their history from movies to know that. The English did the same in Ireland, where I also visited and studied. There was no potato famine. The English just taxed every other crop so heavily that the potatoes were all the common people had to eat, when the crop failed, the people starved but not because their was a lack of food. It does not matter who comes out a victor. History cannot be undone. The British Empire was an often a merciless one. End of Story. (reply to this comment)

From Gabe Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 06:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you missed my point in the comment I made about the US Empire. I was not trying to defend everything the British Empire did, although now that I know you are of Scottish descent and studied there it helps me to understand where your attitude comes from. Personally I lived in the west of Scotland for about four years and being part English I did have a few arguments about this subject. I want to say that I do not have a problem with Scots and I still go up there to visit my family and friends, I just feel that the chip on the shoulder of many of the people I speak to on this subject needs to be addressed. You talk about the merciless quality of the English, but if you go back further you find that the Scots and Irish were not exactly angels. Look at the patron saint of Ireland, St. Patrick, he was from the West coast of England, captured when he was a teenager to be a slave in Ireland, as were hundreds of thousands of others, also the Scots used to raid and pillage the North of England, why do you think they built Hadrian's wall? I am not saying this to justify what the English did, I just think it is wrong to assume that you have the moral high ground simply because the Scots/Irish were the ones who were the minority's of the British Isles. In any case many Scots were part of the ruling elite of the Empire and took part in the conquests and benefits that they brought. I think you have to remember that it did a great deal of good as well as bad. It had the power to end the slave trade (William Wilberforce), built up the sub-continent's railway, postal system, courts, brought the rule of law to many countries. One result of British rule is that India is now the world's largest democracy. Anyway, the main reason I commented to begin with was to say that the Americans need to accept that they have the same responsibilties to make sure they treat the people they consider to be their enemies better then the other powers through history did. There have already been mistakes made, look at the Native Americans, I am sure they would call many things the US army did atrocities of war. Learn from history, because whether Americans like it or not they are this century's new Empire. (reply to this comment)

From Aita. Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course is stereotyping, Nan. But if you'd read the original post I was answering to you'll notice I answered a sterotyper with a stereotype. PJ posts a totally "stereotype and racist and purely ignorant" post about Latins & Spanish but you don't bother to speak up. Just take a look at what he said: "All you have to do is look at the condition of Spanish-speaking countries to get an idea of the (non)efficiency of the language and thus the thought processes of those who speak it. I imagine being able to speak only Spanish something akin to being trapped in a very small mind, similar to not being able to read." The moment I say something about the Sates, though, I get everyone worked up. I've got nothing personally against the States or Americans, in fact, I work with Americans everyday. It doesn't take from the fact that they can be rude, conceited & arrogant. Their culture is very self-centered. I'm not going to talk on the subject of war as that's a totally different subject from the original post I answered. If I wanted to talk on America & its wars, I'd have answer the article on Irak.(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 14:54 (Agree/Disagree?) There was nothing racist or ignorant in my post. The inability to speak English puts a modern person at a serious economical and educational disadvantage, not so much in Europe, but in countries where people rely on foreign employers for work, like Latin America. If you couldn't speak English would you be working with Americans? Would you be posting on this board? I find the thought of not knowing English terrifying, like not knowing Greek during the days of Alexander or not knowing Latin under the Roman Empire - it would limit your prospects considerably. Of course we can be rude, conceited and arrogant, especially if you are someone who considers objective criticism to be rude, enjoying our cultural advances to be conceit and making use of our advantages to be arrogance. Aita, Americans are working in your country, (the country where you are) why? (let's just call them foreigners) Why can't locals do the work they are doing? Either they lack the skills or the desire or the vision to do it, or all of the above. Or else whoever is employing them would rather that particular job be done by foreigners. We all know foreign workers are not cheap by Latin American standards, and it costs even more to transplant them, so it must be because they are better at whatever it is. Spanish speaking countries are famously inefficient, the whole “mañana” thing is not a joke, it’s a reality. It’s not insensitive to say so; it's insensitive to be so inefficient. What do you propose as the new center for our culture since being "self centered" is unacceptable to you?   (reply to this comment)

From Ian Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 16:49 (Agree/Disagree?)   Who am I??? I am me, obviously. If you feel that ethnic cleansing and ritualistic killing is OK, fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I disagree with you strongly enough that I have on occasion placed my own life in danger and ended the lives of others to stop what I consider to be "uncivilized" behaviour. There are many nations and people in the world who have lived their entire lives under the unseen umbrella of US protection and foreign policy. Their life styles, economies, and generally stability of their nations is (in many ways) dependant on the strength of the US as a nation. Obviously the US has made many, many mistakes and has even been party to attrocities commited in the name of freedom. And the protection and stability gained from them does not justify any of the negative things they have done or continue to do.  None of this seems to change the opinion of the romantic types who forget that they are living in a peaceful dream only because somebody died for their freedom.  Human nature is shitty, I learned this the worst way possible. Men of war are horrible. Be thankful the strong are on your side. There was a time in the not so distant past where I woke up every morning ready and willing to take a bullet, not for you, not for your country, but just for the your right to have the same opinion that you use to disagree with me and ask me "who am I". I'm just the shy guy in the corner that was willing to die so you could act like a bitch and not have to wear a full body veil.   "....another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:34 (Agree/Disagree?) It's interesting to me that many of the soldiers when asked for their take on the war with Iraq, have little or no idea as to what is going on.Many of them freely admit they want to go back home and some even say that they didn't really expect to ever have to actually put their lives at risk for their country. I don't think that this is the same thing as the fighting, bleeding ,and dying for freedom of wars past And as far as being under the umbrella of US protection, it certainly does come with a price, doesn't it? Kind of like the brother who is always there to protect you yet at the same time, god forbid you step out of line or go against his way of doing things. All the while he makes sure that everyone else is aware of what a good and kind brother he is having only your best interests in mind.   (reply to this comment)

From Nan Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 21:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Who in the world are you talking to?! The service men and women I know, including my own younger brother who is in the Persian Gulf right now, know full well why they are there and what they signed up for. They are men and women of honor, who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. To say they are ignorant of why they are there and say they are cowardly and want to go home is ridiculous! Don't presume to speak for the thousands of men and women who get up everyday with the possibility that today may be the day that they lose their life for their country, yet do their job with integrity and honor. You are an insult to what they do and why they do it. I doubt seriously that any soldier, airman, marine or sailor didn't know full well that joining the military meant the possibility of giving your life for your country. They take an oath. They are professional fighting machines. They train for war. How could anyone in the military not know what it's about? As far as paying a price for my freedom goes, I have yet to be called on to pay for anything. Yet, I certainly feel a debt. I raise money for military charities, such as one which provides scholarships to the children of military service men and women who lose their lives in the line of duty. That solid three figure pension sure doesn’t put a child through college. I’ve run a marathon four months after I gave birth to my son, for a charity which benefited children who lost a parent in the attacks of 9/11. I think it’s the least I can do for all the freedom I enjoy. I am grateful, that unlike the women of Afghanistan when the Taliban took power, I can get up every morning and go to work to support my son, and I am not beaten or stoned for showing my ankles. I am grateful for the sacrifices made by those who serve in our military both currently and in the past which has given me and my son the freedom to live the life we do. I’m grateful that my son will not have a mandatory military service, unlike other countries. Although, I will certainly support him if he chooses to serve. Those who serve do so by choice. They are underpaid and under-appreciated, yet they are invaluable. To say they are ignorant and to strip from them the integrity it exemplifies in choosing to serve by saying they don’t know why they are there is insulting. They were not drafted. What they do is not easy. Even the most skilled fighter pilots, of whom I am very close friends with a few, have to undergo the most rigorous, demanding training which calls for great personal sacrifice. They work hard for little pay and are away from their families often. They are to be thanked, not insulted by imputing your own views upon an entire mass of thousands. We are truly an ungrateful, lazy bunch of Americans when we sit around criticizing those who do a job we are unwilling to do. Whatever happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” What have we contributed in exchange for all we enjoy and take for granted? Our generation seems to expect a lot, criticize a lot, feel little or no debt to society and give little or nothing to benefit much else other than ourselves. (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Friday, March 14, 2003, 13:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I did not say anyone was cowardly or ignorant Nan, and I am certainly not imputing my own views upon an entire mass of thousands.Most of what you've said about the men and women in the military is true and I was in no way trying to discredit that. While I do NOT just repeat everything I hear ,I do however have my own opinions on the current world events whether or not they are based on true or false "propaganda" that we are ALL being fed everyday about the war and Iraq.( Unless of course you have some extra insight that the rest of us do not) Your views are very strong in the direction you feel is right, but that should not mean that every other viewpoint or opinion is wrong. As far as paying for protection, I was referring to other countries not necessarily the US itself.In my other comment , which you came down on me for as well, I was also referring to the flag burning and chanting in other countries, by which I was trying to say that a lot of people in the US seem to have the mistaken idea that every little country is just dying for America to come and save them.I find it interesting that you would respond much the same way Pres. Bush did in regards to the protests of Feb 15th. Along with the irony that you mentioned, should be the fact that Bush is so adamantly pushing for a war which the majority of the people who "voted" him into office are against. I personally do not believe that everyone joining the military does so for the reasons you stated. I personally believe that a war will be a mistake. I personally believe that our president is acting like a spoiled child because he can't get his way. I personally believe that damaging another country by engaging in warfare with them is not in their best interests ,nor is it going to help the local women have anymore rights than they do now. I personally believe that war with Iraq has nothing to do with the Taliban. I think it's wonderful that you lead the life you do and feel the way you feel. I have not spent that much of my life here in the states or any other country for that matter. Maybe that's why I dont feel this huge urge to ask what I can do for my country. It could also be why I don't feel this unwavering or unquestioning loyalty to one particular country either.I think that as I become more a part of society and a little less of an alien then maybe I can come to see what it is that you already seem to know. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 22:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Nan, you make a good point, but unless you know all the soldiers personally, you're in no position to call her a liar.  She didn't "presume to speak for the thousands of men and women," she's repeating what she heard.(reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 21:46 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From Laiah Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 13:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I completely agree Ian. I am not sure how a discussion on grammar became a race thing but I have to speak up on the stereotyping thing. It seems to be a cool thing to dis United States citizens and make comments that they are rude and loud. Granted, there are those but I have been in Africa for the past year where I come in contact with many nationalities and I gotta tell you, the Americans are way down the list when it comes to loud and rude.   Please judge us on our own merits not our nationality. And I have to say, I have rarely seen more giving and generous people.   (reply to this comment)

From Nan Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 20:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, what he said!(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 14:18 (Agree/Disagree?) At the end of the day, it' is not the culture/civilization's age which is of great concern; but, which cultures and civilizations exude the greatest influence, at any point in history. I violently disagree with the notion of respecting everyone's culture. I personally will never respect cultures which, for example, practice female circumcision and other crimes against women. Nor will I respect cultures which commit crimes against reason and individual thought. To be what I call a culturalist is not akin to being a racist; individuals can choose to change cultures and adopt those of better and higher order. Better, as far as the mental and physical state of humans is concerned. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 13:40 (Agree/Disagree?) 1) I and everyone else can say what is civilized and what is not whenever he or she chooses to, this is called "Freedom of Speech". (something I have long considered to be an American concept, but something which someone else will surely come along and claim credit for shortly) 2) Respect and critique are not necessarily strangers to each other, they often find themselves in the same thought, though often when the first is perceived, then the second is overlooked. 3) Why should people stop complaining about other people's cultures? I can't think of any reason why this should be necessary. I also don't see why I should have to "like it or leave". I am a legal resident, I pay taxes here, I employ local people, and I don't complain about this country half as much as the people who were born here. 4) Shutting up is not a solution to anything, and yes you CAN expect people to conform to your whims, especially when your whims are that they stop taking advantage of you, and stop making excuses. (when you sign people's paychecks, then your whims are very important) I'm sorry you are such a wuss that you have decided to roll over and take it from the bastards, however if that is your outlook then you are disqualified from giving me advice, so let me know when you get done "acomodating" Latin America. 5)"They are in their country, & they have a right to live & act however they want." Are you aware of the statistics on domestic violence and child prostitution in Latin America? Are you thinking maybe you might want to retract that statement? (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 08:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry to offend you, Aita, but lets be honest for a minute. When confronted with social contrast a decision to hold a preference is forced on the observer. Most people deny any preference (liars), but I have been clear about mine, and if you shared that preference you would have little difficulty with the way I expressed it. It is therefore reasonable for me to assume that you hold a different preference, which I am willing to discuss with you, Joe, and anyone else who happens along. If everyone in this country was anything like my wife, the world would be a very different place. The Dominican Republicwouldn’t be the world’s 3rd largest exporter of prostitutes, with only Thailandand the Philippineshaving more sex workers abroad, there wouldn’t be more Dominican nationals living in New Yorkthan there are living at home, and this island wouldn’t have one of the largest AIDS rates outside of the African continent. I didn’t marry her for her country’s qualities; I married her for her own. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Monday, March 10, 2003, 18:51 (Agree/Disagree?) John, if you have a personal dislike of Spanish, that's fine, but your attempt to justify it is full of holes.  Some of the stuff I was really shocked to hear out of the mouth of an otherwise smart person is discussed below: "look at the condition of Spanish speaking countries"  You're implying that they're all in a similar condition.  Uruguay contributes to the IMF, while its neighbors borrow billions from it every year.  Spain was among the first countries to form the European Union, and today receives immigrants from all over the world, but primarily from Spanish speaking countries in South America.  Could we extend your hypothesis to suggest that all English-speaking countries are world super powers?  In India, South Africa, and the Philipines, they speak English, but these countries have nowhere near the standard of living that the US and the UK do.  (Canada is left out of this discussion out of respect for the site administrator, who I have a little thing for) "the ability to speak only Spanish [is] something akin to being trapped in a very small mind"  I wonder how Gabriela Mistral, Pablo Neruda, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and Octavio Paz, all Nobel Prize winners, would feel about that.  Did you watch Vanilla Sky?  The Others?  They were written and directed by a Spaniard named Amenabar.  What do you think of Salvador Dali, another Spaniard?  "try to go online and find a dependable source for literature in Spanish"  I did.  In five minutes, I found the following websites, all of which have many books by Robert Jordan and Anne Rice (who btw write popular fiction, not literature), not to mention a number of other authors that you didn't mention: www.loslibros.com http://www.loslibros.com">www.loslibros.com href="www.fnac.es http://www.fnac.es">www.fnac.es href="www.booksonhand.com http://www.booksonhand.com">www.booksonhand.com> "thumbing through a thesaurus"  This has nice alliteration (several words in a row with the same initial consonant sound), but it conflicts with reality.  Most readers use a dictionary to look up unfamiliar words. The DVD thing I find really hard to believe, but I can't disprove it.  In any case, it would seem to suggest that France and Quebec have more DVD players per capita than most Spanish speaking countries, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.  "It doesn’t even mean that these cultures are open minded, quite often they are not, even they themselves indirectly admit this by swarming into New York and Miami in boatloads,"  This just doesn't make any sense.  If they were closed-minded, wouldn't they stay in their own countries?  And where do you begin to assume that culture has anything to do with immigration?  Even first-graders know that people come here for JOBS.  Your argument is further confounded by the fact that most immigrants retain their own culture, sometimes over several generations, and many do not even stay in the US for more than a few years. It seems to me like you should get the hell out of the DR if you hate the culture and the language that much. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 10:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm impressed you didn't take any of the inflammatory bait I laid out for you Joe, nevertheless your reply is also full of holes. To start with I made it pretty clear that I wasn’t talking about Spain, or Spaniards. Spain, we are all aware, is a first world European country. I think my point about the condition of Spanish-speaking countries stands even with the average being slightly raised by the inclusion of Spainand the IMF contributions of Uruguay. If you want we could get the CIA world fact book out and compare averages, but I don’ think it’s necessary. The US, UK and Canada are all in very good shape, (I consider Canada an English-speaking country, I know officially they have two languages, but English is one of them) South Africa for all its troubles is in better shape than any other African country (I think – watch me be wrong about that) Australia is fine, New Zealand is producing some very good films and even Jamaica is doing better statistically than most of its Caribbean neighbors. (Lower aids rate, lower unemployment, better education, better power grid, etc.) In India and the Philippines English is spoken, yes, but in the case of the Philippines this is because it was US territory from 1898 until WWII. India has over 14 official languages, so of course they speak English for important stuff, so do God and his angels, remember? Also remember that most Russians, Chinese and others seeking to learn a second language will choose English before Spanish, it is generally agreed that it is a more useful international language. As for my point about the books, I stand corrected about Anne Rice not being available in Spanish, but it’s still not available here. It is, however, literature, not simply popular fiction; but you’re right about Robert Jordan and I think you will have to concur that Ayn Rand is nearly impossible to get in Spanish, her books were all translated at one point but have fallen out of print and her message rejected by most Spanish speakers who would serve as perfect villains and examples of pure evil in her work. Now what I said about open mindedness and boatloads was very poorly worded and bound to generate confusion. Let me clarify by pointing out that the availability of jobs and opportunities are an intrinsic part of our American culture, if we didn’t have the same work ethic, integrity and sense of personal responsibility we wouldn’t have any jobs for the constant stream of immigrants to line up for. I say they come for our culture, you say they come for our jobs, but you can’t separate the two. Thanks for the suggestion about relocating, but I have my reasons for being here and obviously they are not based on admiration for the local culture and language, as I have mentioned, the local dialect is a very poor example of the language anyway. I don’t categorically hate it, anyway (I never said that) I just prefer my own and consider that I have good reason to. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 21:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Never mind the holes in my argument for now, let's talk about the big one you keep stepping around: Spain.  You say "I made it pretty clear that I wasn’t talking about Spain."  Well if the Spanish language makes people stupid and ruins the culture and economy of entire countries, how do you explain Spain?  Did lisping their c's and z's and saying "joder" 200 times a day save them from the ignorance that has afflicted every other Spanish speaking country?  Or can we get past our personal preference for languages and have an intelligent discussion about developing countries?  You don't like Spanish, ok, we get it, but surely you realize that the factors behind the current state of Latin America are far more complex than exceptions to gender rules and I think your own difficulties with Spanish and your clashes with some lazy locals have led you to some pretty bizarre assumptions about Spanish and its speakers.  First of all, when someone says "Se me perdio la llave," it's just a manner of speaking.  Everyone knows full well that the key didn't lose itself.  If you've got some lazy, scatter-brained employees, blaming a language that's almost 1000 years old isn't going to solve the problem.  Blaming the culture would be a little more accurate, but is it really going to get you anywhere?  Taking some time to figure out what their expectations are and how to motivate them would be a much better approach.  Maybe promise the employee of the month a bottle of rum? (joke)  I'm not suggesting that you have to like their culture more or less than your own, just figure out how to work within it to get what you want.  You can do this out of pure selfishness too, no "open-mindedness" is necessary. I thought what you said about "American work ethic" was very interesting.  The fact that immigrants risk their lives to come here and get a job says something about their work ethic doesn't it?  All the Spanish speakers I know are very hard workers, and they do jobs that lazy Americans won't do (these are often the very same Americans who complain that immigrants steal jobs and abuse social services) Economists acknowledge that immigrants provide a positive benefit to the economy due to the cheap labor they provide and the money they put into the system that they don't take out, for a number of reasons (for example, think of 4 illegals using the same SSN to get a job, while only one, if any, can collect benefits) Having said all that, I'd just like to make a request: please don't give up on Spanish yet.  Maybe I'll send you some of the books I've read that avoid big words and "masturbatory musings."  And perhaps you should check out Fernando Delgadillo and Mario Vargas Llosa (the essays sprinkled throughout his erotic novels are brilliant).  (You and I need to have a debate, in a different venue, about whether or not Anne Rice qualifies as literature) (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 09:40 (Agree/Disagree?) My designation of Anne Rice as "literature" is just an observation of what SECTION OF THE BOOKSTORE YOU FIND IT IN. It's not usually on the same shelf with King, Lumley, and whoever else writes about vampires because her work is highly symbolic and not intended or understood to be pure fiction. So we can debate it if you want, but it's not me who's opinion is going to have any impact, you need to talk to Mrs. Rice if you want to convince her she writes popular fiction, and then have a chat with the management team over at Borders about the way they organize their inventory. Spanish is old, yes; but by this logic grunting and slapping should be the official language of the world (maybe it is, actually). Spain most likely owes its current state of affairs to the fact that it has close ties (and borders) to other European countries that have progressed quickly. I can’t think of any Spanish contributions to technology or enlightenment, in fact I think the rest of Europe had to pretty much drag them out of the dark ages by their pointy little beards. I can think of many Spanish contributions to ignorance, intolerance, genocide, slavery, racism and a lot of other things that producing a few reasonably impressive poets and musicians does not make up for. I believe there is a fundamental connection between language and thought - one is not possible without the other. I also believe that it is quite impossible to say exactly the same thing in two different languages, the reason being that all the words and phrases we use in any language are steeped in generations of connotations, some intentional and some not, as well as being related to a lifetime of memories, some conscious and some not. People who think differently speak differently, and conversely people who speak differently think differently. Now there are certain default assumptions we make in English when we hear certain phrases about what the speaker is thinking, and sometimes these defaults are similar in other languages and sometimes they are not. The logic and reasoning of the individual is inextricably tied to this set of defaults, and it is not at all unreasonable to expect that someone with a different set of defaults would reason differently as well. Sometimes he would arrive at the same conclusion and sometimes at a slightly different one. For instance, Americans often make a sandwich and cut the crusts of the bread off and throw it away, while Mexicans will take the white of the bread out of a bolillo before making a sandwich with only the crust. I’m not saying this is because they speak Spanish, but it’s a small example of different values that sometimes are inconsequential and sometimes not. The Spanish language prevailing across Central and South America has among other things facilitated close ties to Spain and to the Catholic religion, which I hold directly responsible for the sad state of women’s rights and the astronomical statistics on domestic violence in Latin America. Spain has made progress, I guess. Spaniards still come here thinking they are Gods. The ugly American abroad has nothing to be ashamed of in the face of the Spanish tourist, eternally locked in “conquistador” mode and still thinking he’s God’s gift to the local scene and in typical Latin fashion only respects women (or anybody for that matter) in poetry and music. As far as the whole Culture vs. Jobs thing, I know from experience that it takes a lot more courage and work ethic to have a job available for someone than it does to leave the rat-hole you never cared about enough to clean up and make something out of and go to a (comparative) paradise and take the job. There is relatively little bravery in putting in 40 hrs. a week doing something barely worth the minimum wage, the worst thing that can happen is that you lose your job and have to find another one. (or depending on how you look at it, maybe the worst thing that can happen is you stay in that job for years and never make anything of yourself) You've been to Matamoros, Saltillo, Monterey and the Northern Mexican towns where most of the immigrants come from and you know as well as I do that they're not exactly leaving something beautiful behind. A 7/11 dumpster is along the same lines as a luxury apartment in some of those towns, flush toilets and toilet paper don't happen, no police protection, nothing. I have lived on the street in the US and I have lived in relatively good conditions in northern Mexico, and I'll take the streets in the US any day. (Ironically, thousands of Mexicans take my view on the subject every day) (reply to this comment)

From uuh, Joe Monday, March 10, 2003, 21:46 (Agree/Disagree?) It seems to me like you should get the hell out of the US if you hate the culture and the language that much. (reply to this comment)

From TimR Monday, March 10, 2003, 22:27 (Agree/Disagree?) As his brother I can tell you, Joe DOES get out of the US as much as possible. Also he has two brothers in the Army and another sister joining, so his opposition to war makes sense. Hating American culture IS an important part of American culture. I don't understand these Repulican types who will go on for hours about how bad the school system is and how our nation has gone to hell since they got rid of school prayer, blah blah. Then when you casual mention that something might not be right about popular american opinion, they get all offended and tell you to "Just leave then". Well fine, but the next time I hear a conservative bemoan that fact that abortion is legal, I'm going to tell him "Well if you don't like the way america is then just leave, you traitor!" "What's sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander"   (reply to this comment)

From Yay for French Monday, March 10, 2003, 17:51 (Agree/Disagree?) But, um, maybe you did it for effect, I dunno, but maybe in your example with romance & music, for practitioners of same you could use something like romance novelists, instead of whores.  It's just that, try as I may, I cannot think of my FFing mother as having the remotest connection  to romance.(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 08:33 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right, it was for effect. "whore" brings up more confusing mental images that distract from a fundamentally weak argument than "romantic novelist". Also whores garner less sympathy (but more clients) than romantic novelists.(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Monday, March 10, 2003, 17:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I wanted to apologize to everyone for the annoying large font, it was unintentional.(reply to this comment)

From smartchick Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 15:59 (Agree/Disagree?) John. You chose a good screen name. Your posts sounds like those of a pompous a#%. umhmm sound like you pride yourself in it too.(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 16:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh gosh it's been almost 5 minutes since somebody's mentioned that. Let's go shopping together, you can read me all the signs and labels in the mall and make funny jokes about them, too.(reply to this comment)

From Aita for PJ Monday, March 10, 2003, 09:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Pj, being Spanish but living in Latin America I think I can understand where you're coming from. Frases like the ones Joe sugested are used all the time in Spain: "Voy a llegar tarde" "Perdi mis llaves" "Choque el carro" "Se me cayo el vaso" etc. But it's true that in Latin America people tend to use slang for everything & it does usually tend to shift responsibility. "La mi**** de carro que se fue contra el poste" Pretty silly actually but very true. I don't know why this happens more in South America than in Spain. And I think it really happens more in Caribbean countries because I don't remember the same slang in Chile. (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Monday, March 10, 2003, 17:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Good to know this isn't the case everywhere, maybe it's a local phenomenon, I've only been to Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, but I have had alot of conversations with people from Chile, Peru, Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Spain, and Columbia. (no special order)(reply to this comment)

from mex Friday, March 07, 2003 - 17:18 (Agree/Disagree?) “Ignorance is not your fault, but it is your problem.” I like it, I will use it. Well said. (reply to this comment)

from Jerseygirl Friday, March 07, 2003 - 16:06 (Agree/Disagree?) This is cleverly and politely presented Joe, good work! I think there are a few more important issues to deal with the cult over than why some of us still cannot write or spell. In this case I think it's like Forrest Gump's Mama said,"Stupid is as stupid does." (reply to this comment)

from Nique Friday, March 07, 2003 - 02:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, I would have to agree with you on this particular post. Grammar and spelling is definitely something I notice, often regardless of the content. My philosophy textbook has a lot of mistakes in it and it disrupts the flow when I'm reading. Not that mine is correct all the time, however, I usually do try. It does tend to annoy people occasionally when I point things out, especially my husband. (reply to this comment)

From JoeH Friday, March 07, 2003, 13:01 (Agree/Disagree?) well, truth hurts. Thanks for your comments.(reply to this comment)

from Big Sister Friday, March 07, 2003 - 02:26 (Agree/Disagree?) So, think of it this way, when you read something that you are really getting into you don't stop, usually, to notice the way it is written. You are drawn by the writer's ideas, opinions, whatever. But when you read clunky, misspelled, awkward sentences, and endless wondering paragraphs, the meaning has less chance of reaching you as you puzzle out what the author is attempting (and probably failing) to get across. As for me, I truly notice when a piece is written well and I look for more written by that person. When the writing stalls, I'm gone! (reply to this comment)