 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / November 2004Conflict By Design
It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many if not all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another way, the fundamental building blocks of society may indeed require conflict in order to exist. This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human timeline. Are we simply a product of conflict by design? Gee, didn't you leave out a group? I only see 5 newsgroups here, Meldon. You must be slipping. > It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many if not > all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another way, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human timeline. > Are we simply a product of conflict by design? > Gee, didn't you leave out a group? I only see 5 newsgroups here, > Meldon. You must be slipping. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human >> timeline. Are we simply a product of conflict by design? ...and you replied to them all? John >> Gee, didn't you leave out a group? I only see 5 newsgroups here, >> Meldon. You must be slipping. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John Wasn't sure which group he was in. >>Gee, didn't you leave out a group? I only see 5 newsgroups here, >>Meldon. You must be slipping. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ...and you replied to them all? Rofl. Rambler Sorry if the number of groups trouble you. I thought the subject was important enough to each of them. This has likely been one of the highest numbers of groups I've cross-posted - ever. Perhaps next time I feel the need to cross-post, I will change the subject line. That way no one will realize it's the same message until they read it. ;) Regardless, I have acknowledged your point and offered an explanation. Since you didn't provide any criticism of the post's content, I'll assume you agree. > Gee, didn't you leave out a group? I only see 5 newsgroups here, Meldon. > You must be slipping. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human timeline. > > Are we simply a product of conflict by design? > Sorry if the number of groups trouble you. I thought the subject was > important enough to each of them. This has likely been one of the highest > numbers of groups I've cross-posted - ever. Perhaps next time I feel the > need to cross-post, I will change the subject line. That way no one will > realize it's the same message until they read it. ;) One reason to avoid cross-posting is the issue of thread drift - threads of any length at all do tend to drift, and when you cross-post to such diverse groups with such different points of view the drifted subject tends to become either 1.) of no interest to most of the groups and therefore an annoyance or 2.) become acrimonious because the different groups DO have a different point of view and when enough groups are involved at least a couple of people are likely to become offensive over it, and therefore it becomes an annoyance. Since your topic was "conflict by design", I suspect you were trying to provoke #2. Not everybody likes that, though, so would you please consider not cross-posting, and also including "OT" in the subject line, to denote an off-topic post? Thanks > > Sorry if the number of groups trouble you. I thought the subject was > > important enough to each of them. This has likely been one of the highest [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thanks I appreciate your explanation but I do not control which groups people wish to include in their reply. Replies do not have to include all of the groups. Off topic? That's ironic since you are discussing cross-posting while I am attempting to discuss the nature of conflict in the development of society. You criticize me for being an annoyance and provocative (for cross-posting) yet NG's a full of rabble-rousers dedicated to annoying and pulling off-topic, otherwise productive conversations and spend little time in any meaningful conversation. Of course if conflict in the development of society is a subject which you don't wish to discuss, I can understand. > > > Sorry if the number of groups trouble you. I thought the subject was > > > important enough to each of them. This has likely been one of the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I appreciate your explanation but I do not control which groups people wish > to include in their reply. To some degree, you do, though - for example, if you post something to alt.support.divorce without crossposting, then the replies will stay in alt.support.divorce, or if you post to soc.men, the replies will stay in soc.men, etc. That doesn't mean that you can't post the same topic to different groups - but it is considered poor form to do it simultaneously, instead it is considered good manners to post them separately - one to alt.support.divorce, another copy to another group, etc. Replies do not have to include all of the groups. > Off topic? That's ironic since you are discussing cross-posting while I am > attempting to discuss the nature of conflict in the development of society. Not really - I was making a request to eliminate the cross-post in a thread that you started, and therefore did not change the subject line. However, your original post did not appear to pertain to conflict specific to divorce - and this is alt.support.divorce. Discourse on topics pertaining to divorce is on-topic here, topics not pertaining to divorce are off-topic. > You criticize me for being an annoyance and provocative (for cross-posting) > yet NG's a full of rabble-rousers dedicated to annoying and pulling > off-topic, otherwise productive conversations and spend little time in any > meaningful conversation. Yeah, that's often the result of the thread drift I was talking about. In this newsgroup the biggest rabble rousers seem to come from some of the other groups that you cross-posted to - hence the concern. We get cycles in which some of them come over and rant and rave in a hostile fashion for a while, and the newsgroup becomes darn near unreadable, IMO. > Of course if conflict in the development of society is a subject which you > don't wish to discuss, I can understand. I can't speak for everybody, of course, but is true that I personally am not particularly interested in that topic. Joy said > > Of course if conflict in the development of society is a subject which you > > don't wish to discuss, I can understand. > > I can't speak for everybody, of course, but is true that I personally am not > particularly interested in that topic. Me neither ... especially not in a divorce newsgroup. Casey >>>> Sorry if the number of groups trouble you. I thought the subject was >>>> important enough to each of them. This has likely been one of the highest >>>> numbers of groups I've cross-posted - ever. Perhaps next time I feel the >>>> need to cross-post, I will change the subject line. That way no one will >>>> realize it's the same message until they read it. ;) >>> >>> One reason to avoid cross-posting is the issue of thread drift - threads of >>> any length at all do tend to drift, and when you cross-post to such diverse >>> groups with such different points of view the drifted subject tends to >>> become either 1.) of no interest to most of the groups and therefore an >>> annoyance or 2.) become acrimonious because the different groups DO havea >>> different point of view and when enough groups are involved at least a >>> couple of people are likely to become offensive over it, and therefore it >>> becomes an annoyance. Since your topic was "conflict by design", I suspect >>> you were trying to provoke #2. Not everybody likes that, though, so would >>> you please consider not cross-posting, and also including "OT" in the >>> subject line, to denote an off-topic post? >>> >>> Thanks >> >> I appreciate your explanation but I do not control which groups people wish >> to include in their reply. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Off topic? That's ironic since you are discussing cross-posting while I am >> attempting to discuss the nature of conflict in the development of society. > Not really - I was making a request to eliminate the cross-post in a thread > that you started, and therefore did not change the subject line. However, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> You criticize me for being an annoyance and provocative (for cross-posting) >> yet NG's a full of rabble-rousers dedicated to annoying and pulling >> off-topic, otherwise productive conversations and spend little time in any [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I can't speak for everybody, of course, but is true that I personally am not > particularly interested in that topic. Besides which, society isn't developing; it's regressing. (How many times do I have to explain it to y'all)? > Besides which, society isn't developing; it's regressing. (How many times > do I have to explain it to y'all)? Ooops. Hey Bill, we're not speaking specifically about divorce. Watch out or the fempolice will be on your case. Frankly, I'm in agreement with you. It's going backwards. > > > > Sorry if the number of groups trouble you. I thought the subject was > > > > important enough to each of them. This has likely been one of the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > instead it is considered good manners to post them separately - one to > alt.support.divorce, another copy to another group, etc. Poor form? Huh? NG's can be set up to bounce cross-posted messages. I would suggest it is up to the person who adds the newsgroup to make that choice. If cross-posting is allowed it will occur. Ask the moderator to remove the ability to cross-post to the group and get off my case. I'm sure there are plenty of other cross-posters around to keep you busy. > Replies do not have to include all of the groups. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > divorce - and this is alt.support.divorce. Discourse on topics pertaining > to divorce is on-topic here, topics not pertaining to divorce are off-topic. Yes really. Cross-posting has nothing to do with my subject of Conflict by Design yet, here we are. Further, you suggest a discussion about conflict isn't relevant in a divorce forum. Clearly you have a beef with me personally so why don't you start a new thread and get all your frustrations out there. > > You criticize me for being an annoyance and provocative (for > cross-posting) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > which some of them come over and rant and rave in a hostile fashion for a > while, and the newsgroup becomes darn near unreadable, IMO. That's the nature of newsgroups. I'm simply partaking and I have to share in some of the unpleasant aspects of forums just like you except I put up with it and try to stay on topic. > > Of course if conflict in the development of society is a subject which you > > don't wish to discuss, I can understand. > > I can't speak for everybody, of course, but is true that I personally am not > particularly interested in that topic. Could have fooled me. > Poor form? Huh? yes, actually, it is poor form. The newsgroup FAQ even references cross-posting as poor form. The best thing to have done at this stage, Meldon, would have been to say, "Oops, I'm sorry." But you seem to want to beat this one to death, so here goes ... > NG's can be set up to bounce cross-posted messages. I would suggest > it is up to the person who adds the newsgroup to make that choice. If > cross-posting is allowed it will occur. Ask the moderator to remove > the ability to cross-post to the group and get off my case. Well, I am not a Usenet junkie, but I think that this is an unmoderated group, and changing newsgroup settings (if it is possible) I would presume takes as long as setting up a newsgroup in the first place - i.e. a long time > I'm sure there are plenty of other cross-posters around to keep you > busy. Sure, but the obstinant ones get my attention the most. <snip> >> Not really - I was making a request to eliminate the cross-post in >> a thread that you started, and therefore did not change the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you have a beef with me personally so why don't you start a new > thread and get all your frustrations out there. Missing the point I see. you, Meldon, aren't listening real well. First off, Joy is talking about crossposting. Second off, "Conflict by Design" as it relates to the human ages *is* off topic. It might be interesting, (then again) but it is off topic. Third, she was (if I have guessed right) stating that a generic discussion about conflict (i.e. wars and whatnot) is *not* germane to divorce, unless you really begin to stretch it out. Fourth, I think it is you that have a beef with somebody telling you, very nicely in my opinion, that you are way out of line. Fifth, noticed the posts coming in from soc.boys? That is exactly what Joy was talking about. Sixth, people are going to have a beef with you if you continue to have the Leaning Tower of Pisa on your shoulder. Not that anybody can do much about it ... it's Usenet, but your credibility will take a nosedive. <snip> > That's the nature of newsgroups. I'm simply partaking and I have to > share in some of the unpleasant aspects of forums just like you > except I put up with it and try to stay on topic. But yo uare not staying on topic. In fact, to me, it sounds like this thread and your responses was designed to get to Conflict by design just because. Disingenious. >> I can't speak for everybody, of course, but is true that I >> personally am not particularly interested in that topic. >> > Could have fooled me. Sarcastic twit. She was being nice. You decided to be a bunghole because you didn't like that she called you on doing something you shouldn't have. See, it is responses like this that take your credibility on a nosedive. Que sera. Rambler > > Poor form? Huh? > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Rambler You're right. I'm no good at all. Sorry for becoming involved. I hope that after I crawl into my hole, this newsgroup will have no further problems. Sorry to have troubled anyone. > > Poor form? Huh? > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > First off, Joy is talking about crossposting. With regard to me original subject, she is off-topic. > Second off, "Conflict by Design" as it relates to the human ages *is* > off topic. It might be interesting, (then again) but it is off topic. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Fifth, noticed the posts coming in from soc.boys? That is exactly what > Joy was talking about. I didn't notice but why are you blaming me for missing it when someone else has included it in the first place. I did not include that group originally. Someone else did and your blaming me for missing it f.ck off!. > Sixth, people are going to have a beef with you if you continue to have > the Leaning Tower of Pisa on your shoulder. Not that anybody can do > much about it ... it's Usenet, but your credibility will take a nosedive. You're right. I should remember that newsnet credibility is very important. f.ck off. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thread and your responses was designed to get to Conflict by design just > because. Disingenious. I've been trying. Start a new thread on forum ettiquete and f.ck off. > >> I can't speak for everybody, of course, but is true that I > >> personally am not particularly interested in that topic. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > shouldn't have. See, it is responses like this that take your > credibility on a nosedive. I've seen much worse. Go after them and stop waiting my time - freak! > > > Poor form? Huh? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > cross-posting is allowed it will occur. Ask the moderator to remove > > > the ability to cross-post to the group and get off my case. There is no moderator. > > > Yes really. Cross-posting has nothing to do with my subject of > > > Conflict by Design yet, here we are. Further, you suggest a > > > discussion about conflict isn't relevant in a divorce forum. Clearly > > > you have a beef with me personally so why don't you start a new > > > thread and get all your frustrations out there. Not at all - I don't even know you, why would I have a beef with you personally? > > First off, Joy is talking about crossposting. > > With regard to me original subject, she is off-topic. The point I was trying to make is that for this particular newsgroup, your original topic was off-topic, since this is a divorce newsgroup. There may well be other newsgroups where it would be on-topic, this just doesn't happen to be one of them. Not that being off-topic is that big a deal - any thread of any length seems to go off-topic, and often the off-topic threads are very interesting. Personally, I don't mind off-topic threads - but some folks do, and for them it helps if the original post has OT in the subject line and in general that is considered good netiquette. (FWIW, it is also considered to be good form to include the words VENT or RANT in the subject line, for those occasions when one might be venting or ranting - this warns off those who might be sensitive to harsh language, for instance) I'm really not trying to be snotty to you, believe it or not - after you've been here a while you'll see why cross-posting gets people's dander up. It really has caused problems before. > > > > Poor form? Huh? > > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > been here a while you'll see why cross-posting gets people's dander up. It > really has caused problems before. I've been posting on newsgroups since the early 90's. I have never read anyone so concerned with net-etiquette. Start a new thread and criticize me all you want. Your point has been made but clearly you do not wish to accept mine. I was hoping to have a constructive dialogue on the subject instead I have spent literally days trying to defend my judgment on cross-post the message. You're hereby ignored. >> > > > Poor form? Huh? >> > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > message. > You're hereby ignored. Moose (Mooses?) have a very difficult time following net-etiquette. Thier hooves get in the way. iNet said > "Meldon" <meldon_fens@meldon.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Moose (Mooses?) have a very difficult time following net-etiquette. > Thier hooves get in the way. I always thought Mr. Moose on Captain Kangaroo was very polite. Casey > iNet said >> "Meldon" <meldon_fens@meldon.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I always thought Mr. Moose on Captain Kangaroo was very polite. Canadians (moose and caribou) are know for being overly polite, unless of course they are a politician and then there is a different standard to live down to! John (I thank you ever so much for your time. Have a great day, eh!) (Now where did I put my beer?) -Lone_Wolf- said > > iNet said > >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > (Now where did I put my beer?) Would that beer happen to be a ... Moosehead? Casey > Moose (Mooses?) have a very difficult time following net-etiquette. Thier > hooves get in the way. Realii? >> Moose (Mooses?) have a very difficult time following net-etiquette. >> Thier >> hooves get in the way. > > Realii? Yeah, my sister got BIT! Meldon said > Joy said > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all you want. Your point has been made but clearly you do not wish to accept > mine. I seriously can't believe you've been posting that long and yet do not seem to understand the points being made. > I was hoping to have a constructive dialogue on the subject instead I have > spent literally days trying to defend my judgment on cross-post the message. Yeah, but you were trying to have a dialogue on a subject that has nothing to do with *divorce* ... and you were trying to drag 4 other groups into it as well. > You're hereby ignored. You're getting there yourself. Casey Are you saying that if we all got along we wouldn't have need to invent rules, therefore, we have laws rules, courts systems, governmental oversight, etc. because we, in fact, cannot get along without them, as a society. I understood that much.....unless he meant something else | Gee, didn't you leave out a group? I only see 5 newsgroups here, Meldon. | You must be slipping. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | > This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human timeline. | > Are we simply a product of conflict by design? That's the principle but of course we know conflict is inevitable. I'm suggesting that conflict has been leveraged and even encouraged in order to gain economic benefit. > Are you saying that if we all got along we wouldn't have need to invent > rules, therefore, we have laws rules, courts systems, governmental [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > timeline. > | > Are we simply a product of conflict by design? > That's the principle but of course we know conflict is inevitable. I'm > suggesting that conflict has been leveraged and even encouraged in order > to > gain economic benefit. My sister was once bitten by a moose. > > That's the principle but of course we know conflict is inevitable. I'm > > suggesting that conflict has been leveraged and even encouraged in order > > to > > gain economic benefit. > > My sister was once bitten by a moose. I believe Hitler was once bitten by a moose. Or maybe it was an elk. I don't think they have mooses in Europe. DrLith said > "iNet" wrote > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Or maybe it was an elk. I don't think they have mooses in Europe. I ate some elk once. It was pretty good. Casey Keep in mind, moose bites can be painful. > DrLith said >> > "Meldon" wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Casey iNet said > "Casey" wrote > > DrLith said [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Keep in mind, moose bites can be painful. I wonder how they compare to elk bites? If your sister had also been bitten by an elk, she could tell us. Casey Keep it up, guys. You're gonna make me go out and kill something ( sheesh! all this talk of eating moose, and elk ). I can do without the expense of buying a permit for a month of hunting. Deer, antelope, elk, and big-horned sheep here.....maybe make it south one day for javelina. I would enjoy that very much, I think. | DrLith said | > > "Meldon" wrote [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | Casey > Keep it up, guys. You're gonna make me go out and kill something You want to borry my Winchester? Best - Fido What? You have one bigger than .45? | > Keep it up, guys. You're gonna make me go out and kill something | | You want to borry my Winchester? | | Best - Fido "John Riggs" <johnri60626@netzero.net> wrote in news:302g9eF2q53m3U1@uni- berlin.de: > What? You have one bigger than .45? Bigger GUN? Hmmm... Well, actually, my Winchester is a 30-30. The only thing I have bigger than a .45 would be my 12 gauge slugster. Here's a good load: http://tinyurl.com/6rb8z I wonder if one of those babies could knock down a moose or elk or polar bear, or whatever. . Best - Fido >| > Keep it up, guys. You're gonna make me go out and kill something >| >| You want to borry my Winchester? >| >| Best - Fido I have a few boxes of those already, but they ain't real good much beyond 50yd. | "John Riggs" <johnri60626@netzero.net> wrote in news:302g9eF2q53m3U1@uni- | berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | >| | >| Best - Fido > I have a few boxes of those already, but they ain't real good much > beyond 50yd. I have heard that they are really good against television sets, microwave ovens, refridgerators, etc. Best - Fido >| "John Riggs" <johnri60626@netzero.net> wrote in >| news:302g9eF2q53m3U1@uni- berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >| >| >| >| Best - Fido Well, at under 50 yards they do a decent job on white-tail and mulies. | > I have a few boxes of those already, but they ain't real good much | > beyond 50yd. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | >| >| | >| >| Best - Fido > > Keep it up, guys. You're gonna make me go out and kill something > > You want to borry my Winchester? Didja get it wet shooting them fish in a barrel? >> > Keep it up, guys. You're gonna make me go out and kill something >> >> You want to borry my Winchester? > > Didja get it wet shooting them fish in a barrel? No, if you read the duck-hunting threads, you will see that I put a condom over the end of the barrel before I get it all fishy. Anyway, that wasn't my Winchester, but I will go "bump firing" with my AK- 47. More bump firing on the web: http://www.redstararms.com/uploads/bumptime.wmv Best - Fido See, Doc.! I'm not the only guy that uses them things for protecting gun barrels. | >> > Keep it up, guys. You're gonna make me go out and kill something | >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | Best - Fido > Anyway, that wasn't my Winchester, but I will go "bump firing" with my AK- > 47. More bump firing on the web: > > http://www.redstararms.com/uploads/bumptime.wmv Hoooooo-doggie! I feel reasonably certain that no animals were harmed in the making of THAT video! I imagine that's not the point though, is it? >> Anyway, that wasn't my Winchester, but I will go "bump firing" with my >> AK- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the > making of THAT video! I imagine that's not the point though, is it? I love the music. >> Anyway, that wasn't my Winchester, but I will go "bump firing" with >> my AK- 47. More bump firing on the web: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in the making of THAT video! I imagine that's not the point though, is > it? Well, you can't hunt animals in Maine with a gun that holds more than 5 rounds. I suppose if I hunted animals I could use my Mosin-Nagant M44 which will only hold 5 rounds. But it has a bayonet in case you run out of bullets. Best - Fido >>> Anyway, that wasn't my Winchester, but I will go "bump firing" with >>> my AK- 47. More bump firing on the web: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > will only hold 5 rounds. But it has a bayonet in case you run out of > bullets. My God man,...you don't hunt? "YooperBoyka" <cj.don'twant@no.spam> wrote in news:VYOdnfez4rhewD3cRVn- vg@comcast.com: >>>> Anyway, that wasn't my Winchester, but I will go "bump firing" with >>>> my AK- 47. More bump firing on the web: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > My God man,...you don't hunt? No, I just started shooting this year. I ended up with about a dozen guns or so and a few thousand rounds of tucked away. Today we were out shooting various targets including a propane tank. That was a blast. I am reading a lot about hunting, though. Looks like fun. Best - Fido Ummm ... if you start thinking that hunting is "fun" I will have to ask for a divorce. : P donna > > My God man,...you don't hunt? > No, I just started shooting this year. I ended up with about a dozen guns > or so and a few thousand rounds of tucked away. Today we were out shooting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Best - Fido Donna said > Fido said > > Yooper said [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > : P Well, at least this is the perfect newsgroup. Casey > Ummm ... if you start thinking that hunting is "fun" I will have to > ask for a divorce. Well, umm.. there are LOTS of good reasons to hunt. Not that I do, you know. Hunt, that is. For example - you get your meat in the supermarket all wrapped up in cellophane - isn't hunting a more "honest" way of getting food? Hunters provide a valuable culling function in wildlife management, and an animal raised in the woods lives a better life than a animal raised for butchering. Also, it is not just the killing of the animal that is the appeal of hunting - it is becoming one with nature. Immersed in the environment, senses heightened, noticing every tree and branch, seeing things you never saw before - or would ever see unless you had taken the time to sit quietly in the woods and look and listen for a few hours. ... Hey, what's that guy doing in my tree stand... I'm going to tell him to get the hell out of there. I'll be back in a minute. Best - Fido >: P > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Best - Fido > ... Hey, what's that guy doing in my tree stand... > > I'm going to tell him to get the hell out of there. I'll be back in a > minute. You heard about that, eh? Terrible. YooperBoyka said > "Fido" <tomchandNS@gwi.net> wrote in message > > dtschet@yahoo.com (Donna) wrote in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You heard about that, eh? > Terrible. That was about the most bizarre thing I've read in a long time. Casey > YooperBoyka said >> "Fido" <tomchandNS@gwi.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That was about the most bizarre thing I've read in a long time. ...and another little part of my innocence is shattered. Tree stand? | > ... Hey, what's that guy doing in my tree stand... | > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | You heard about that, eh? | Terrible. > Tree stand? http://tinyurl.com/3rwl3 > > Tree stand? > > > http://tinyurl.com/3rwl3 It's interesting how the ethnic/immigrant side of the story seems to be tthe most important aspect. The AP article, for example, states not once, but twice, that the shooter is "an immigrant from Laos." And yet, this guy came here 24 years ago, at the age of 12, is a U.S. citizen, speaks English not only fluently but probably without a trace of an accent.... Yet with white folks, it's not every time "Jim Carrey, an immigrant from Canada," or "Albert Einstein, an immigrant from Germany." >> > Tree stand? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yet with white folks, it's not every time "Jim Carrey, an immigrant from > Canada," or "Albert Einstein, an immigrant from Germany." Yup. Seems some people find strange that an Asian immigrant would even go deer hunting, too. >>> > Tree stand? >>> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Seems some people find strange that an Asian immigrant would > even go deer hunting, too. [Insert "it" where appropriate] > [Insert "it" where appropriate] Yer gettin' mighty refined on us, Yooper old boy. Time wuz when you'da said "Stick it where the sun don't shine!" > Seems some people find strange that an Asian immigrant would > even go deer hunting, too. ...and that his nickname is 'Rusty'. >> > Tree stand? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >here 24 years ago, at the age of 12, is a U.S. citizen, speaks English not >only fluently but probably without a trace of an accent.... The bigotry being spewed about this guy here in MN is pretty disgusting. It's bad enough without some of the sleaze that's being spread around. Well, I used to rent an apartment below a family of (South ) Viet Namese. They apparently were evac'd out of the country because the father was an officer in the South Viet Namese Army. The oldest son would tell me stories of his family before they came here. No, they weren't treated very nicely by a lot of folks, but they also stepped on a lot of toes inadvertently, leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I also lived in Grand Island and a larger contingent of Laotians . They had a problem with pets turning up missing and part of these people's dinner. The police, churches, and city fathers had to calm the local populace and explain to the Laotians that eating your neighbor's pets is not done here. Not stories...facts. Cultural conflict creates a lot of problems. Now, given that that was a number of years ago, I would imagine this is not the story with this guy, but I suspect his actions opened a lot of old wounds, and added ammunition for the local bigots to use, but that will happen no matter what your ethnic background, although the U.S seems to have a larger problem with it, or maybe we are just more aware of it. | >> > Tree stand? | >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | disgusting. It's bad enough without some of the sleaze that's being | spread around. >> > Tree stand? >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yet with white folks, it's not every time "Jim Carrey, an immigrant > from Canada," or "Albert Einstein, an immigrant from Germany." Or how often do you hear: "Fido the white Black Muslim". Vang was a hothead, there's plenty of evidence of that, but what I have been watching closely is the anti-gun slant on this. The SKS is consistently described as "an assault weapon", when technically an assault weapon is one that can be switched from semi- automatic to full automatic - which could not have been done with Vang's gun. But the nomenclature seems to have been broadened to include military-style semi- automatics. The gun (more accurately the cartridge) has been described variously as "powerful" but also as "underpowered for hunting". The SKS has been described both as a common hunting gun and also as an unusual weapon for hunting. An anti- gun press release incorrectly described the gun as "a spray-fire gun, capable of 'hosing down' a target area". (Typically with a semi- automatic, each shoot would be squeezed-off individually. Because the gun tends to buck, it is typically leveled and aimed again after every shot, much like a bolt action gun would be.) Vang has been described as "frightened", or as 'provoked" but also as a cold blooded murderer who ran down some of his victims and killed them as they begged for mercy. The incident has been described as a duel where Vang outgunned armed hunters, and as one where he sought out only unarmed victims. The blame for this incident has been specifically laid at the Bush administration's feet as a result of allowing the "assault-weapons ban" to expire - but the SKS was not a banned gun. So read you could read whatever you want into it. Those that have an axe to grind will certainly twist and distort the truth, and even outright lie to advocate their little causes. Best - Fido Here's a good article: http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/local_18770910.shtml > Vang was a hothead, there's plenty of evidence of that, but what I > have been watching closely is the anti-gun slant on this. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Best - Fido I don't want to remind you, but at 12, he was probably a seasoned veteran in the Viet Nam war. In some places children 6 years old are fighting alongside the adults, pick a side. | > > Tree stand? | > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | Yet with white folks, it's not every time "Jim Carrey, an immigrant from | Canada," or "Albert Einstein, an immigrant from Germany." It was a git at Nebraska, I heard the news. Thanks anyway. That is always one of the things I try to avoid. Met up with some real pieces of work in the field a few times. This guys sounds like another "hunting accident" story | > Tree stand? | > | http://tinyurl.com/3rwl3 I am not buying your defense. Immersing oneself in nature does not mean having the unfair advantage of carrying around a gun to use on a small animal. When is the last time you saw an armed rabbit? Deer herd thinning is a more platable argument for hunting in densely populated woods where a painful dealth by starvation will serve to naturally select over the toughest of winters. Hunting for sport - the thrill of the kill is distasteful to me. Just the way I view things. Enjoying the woods on a good hike will give you the same benefit of being at one with nature without disturbing the balance of things. Introducing human violence into a place where natural predators and survival challenges are already in place seems to be redundant. donna Donna said > I am not buying your defense. Immersing oneself in nature does not > mean having the unfair advantage of carrying around a gun to use on a > small animal. > > When is the last time you saw an armed rabbit? Nobody has ever survived such an encounter to tell about it. Those hellish little assault-rifle-toting creatures never leave any surviving witnesses. Casey > Donna said > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hellish little assault-rifle-toting creatures never leave any surviving > witnesses. Bring the Holy Hand Grenade. YooperBoyka said > > Donna said > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bring the Holy Hand Grenade. One... two... five. Casey > YooperBoyka said >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > One... two... five. THREE SIR!! 1,2,5.... | > Donna said | > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | Bring the Holy Hand Grenade. ...it has long, nasty teeth and sharp claws | Donna said | [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | Casey >I am not buying your defense. Immersing oneself in nature does not > mean having the unfair advantage of carrying around a gun to use on a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > give you the same benefit of being at one with nature without > disturbing the balance of things. We as a species are "disturbing the balance of things" no matter where we are, or what we do. For those of us who hunt for food, we feel that we are taking a closer view of our place in the balance. Humans are omnivores. Predation is part of that. I prefer to take personal responsibility for killing the animals that I am going to eat. It tends to put eating meat into it's proper perspective. Most true hunters will tell you there is no "thrill of the kill". The kill is an anti-climax. Me? I cry and thank the creator for the gift. Then I throw up while I'm field dressing. It's a price one should pay for eating meat. It seems to be a small price when I'm sizzlin' up some venison backstrap, though. > Introducing human violence into a place where natural predators and > survival challenges are already in place seems to be redundant. A very common misconception. We have been on this rock for a long time. Everything "wild" you see has already been shaped by human intervention. Most predators in North America were pushed to the brink by a "common wisdom" that held that they were "evil". Sportsmen in the US were at the original cutting edge in ecology and conservation when no one else seemed to care. We tend to understand more intimately what "survival challenges" there are than *anyone*. A lot of people seem to think they know better, though. <shrug> > > Introducing human violence into a place where natural predators and > > survival challenges are already in place seems to be redundant. > > A very common misconception. > We have been on this rock for a long time. "You cannot go against nature, 'cause when you do Going against nature is a part of nature, too." >>>Introducing human violence into a place where natural predators and >>>survival challenges are already in place seems to be redundant. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "You cannot go against nature, 'cause when you do > Going against nature is a part of nature, too." The gorilla next to me has a different opinion but he want's some bananas first before he commends any further. > When is the last time you saw an armed rabbit? A moose once bit my sister. >> When is the last time you saw an armed rabbit? > > A moose once bit my sister. http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/spacelord36/moo2.html > >> When is the last time you saw an armed rabbit? > > > > A moose once bit my sister. > > http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/spacelord36/moo2.html Nice rack. >> That's the principle but of course we know conflict is inevitable. >> I'm suggesting that conflict has been leveraged and even encouraged >> in order to >> gain economic benefit. > > My sister was once bitten by a moose. Dang a moose! ROFL >> That's the principle but of course we know conflict is inevitable. I'm >> suggesting that conflict has been leveraged and even encouraged in order >> to >> gain economic benefit. > > My sister was once bitten by a moose. Freakin' day late and a dollar short again. > It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many > if not all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human > timeline. Are we simply a product of conflict by design? Huh? > > It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many > > if not all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Huh? Care to elaborate? > > > It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many > > > if not all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Care to elaborate? I can't speak for John's "huh", but for my own "huh" that I would have posted if he hadn't beat me to it, I can say that I didn't understand your point and therefore didn't see any profound implications. > > > > It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many > > > > if not all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > posted if he hadn't beat me to it, I can say that I didn't understand your > point and therefore didn't see any profound implications. I'll spell an example out for you. One implication might be that many if not all major conflicts (particularly armed conflicts), instead of something that we wish to avoid if possible, actually becomes something which is just waiting to happen. I can think of other implications but I'll let you have a go. Meldon said > "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message > > I can't speak for John's "huh", but for my own "huh" that I would have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > actually becomes something which is just waiting to happen. I can think of > other implications but I'll let you have a go. My take is that you have way too much time on your hands. Got anything divorce-related going on in your life? Casey > Meldon said > > "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Casey You're off-topic again. > You're off-topic again. Major Tom to ground control ... Rambler > > You're off-topic again. > > Major Tom to ground control ... > > Rambler It must be me. > "Casey" <cclremovethispart@cox.net> wrote in message > > Got anything divorce-related going on in your life? > > > > Casey > > You're off-topic again. How so? He asked about divorce related stuff, and this is alt.support.divorce. Whether a post is off-topic or on-topic is not determined by the content of the first post in the thread - it is determined by whether the content of the thread (including the original post) is consistent with the purpose of the newsgroup, as set out by the FAQ for that specific NG. The FAQ for this particular newsgroup is found here: http://www.altsupportdivorce.org/ The first part of it is excerpted below: Section 1: A.S.D Introduction (What the group is for, how it started, what it is not for, Common Acronyms and Terms) Q1.1: What is alt.support.divorce? A1.1: This newsgroup is intended for people who are divorced, divorcing, considering divorce, or affected by divorce (their own or others), or other loss of a long-term romantic relationship even if "legal" divorce is not involved. This includes children and other family members or friends of those directly involved. Q1.2: That's what it's for? What is it NOT for? A1.2: a.s.d is NOT for the crossposting of messages from (or to) other newsgroups (so check and trim your headers when you reply!). It is also not for the posting of binary files (pictures or executable programs.) > I can't speak for John's "huh", but for my own "huh" that I would have > posted if he hadn't beat me to it, I can say that I didn't understand your > point and therefore didn't see any profound implications. How about a divorce implication? Take for example the skyrocketing divorce rates over most of the past 20 years. Suppose for a moment that (which many people claim) divorce is an industry. I would suggest that given my theory, the divorce industry may not only provide services to those in need but in fact encourage that need. There are numerous examples which show either companies, industries or individuals take steps to create a need in the marketplace. Conflict in the form of divorce provides fertile ground for significant profits and economic activity. I suppose you could say that everything we do is simply another opportunity for someone to generate revenue. Conflict is simply gaining in economic strength. I think what is being missed however is how much these types of activities impact people's lives. In other words, instead of simply capitalizing on people's adversity and perhaps even encouraging the practice, it is something which we should be trying to minimize. Simply stated, the theory that adversity causes growth may be true in a sense, but in the end if we allow adversity to run amuck, we do it to the detriment of society, not to it's benefit. >It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many if not >all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another way, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human timeline. >Are we simply a product of conflict by design? No. You've got it exactly backwards. >>It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many if not >>all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another way, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >You've got it exactly backwards. LOL... So, Fred, I take it that you mean that in reality, we design to conflict. I think I *like* that idea. Except, of course, that's it's a tad to close to the "original sin" idea for my comfort. OTOH... Oh, the hell with it... rj >>>It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many if not >>>all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another way, the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >So, Fred, I take it that you mean that in reality, we design to >conflict. In reality, we "design" civil society if response to conflict. >I think I *like* that idea. Except, of course, that's it's a tad to >close to the "original sin" idea for my comfort. Religion has nothing to do with it. Human nature has everything to do with it. > It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many if not > all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another way, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This has profound implications spanning almost the entire human timeline. > Are we simply a product of conflict by design? Feminism is conflict by design, they demand 'equality' but retain gender privlege. >> It has occurred to me that without conflict there is no need for many if not >> all of the fundamental building blocks of society. Put another way, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Feminism is conflict by design, they demand 'equality' but retain gender privlege. It is sweet to drink but bitter to pay for. -- Lady Chatterly "Hey Meat-->Retard, meet your replacement, Lady C! All the pointless stupidity in a followup I could ever want and more! And it's automated! With Brand X" programming! Oh, oh you're obsolete now, mother f.cker." -- Onideus Mad Hatter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.