Discussion:
In relation to Ty's statements, and my conscience
(too old to reply)
Roger W. Norman
2004-09-05 01:17:38 UTC
Permalink
I have to say that I am no longer going to accept any reasons for not
expressing my viewpoints. I have never lost the anger of 9/11 nor have I
accepted the repercussions of a Bush mandated America.

I wrote William Pitt a couple of times about being the speaker of the dead,
but he only spoke for those who died in Iraq under a false mandate. I speak
for the dead of 9/11 and those that have died since.

One wonders just what would have made another hurl themselves from a 110
story window as if they might, under some special dispensation from God,
survive. Or perhaps it was simply a matter of not desiring to die from
burning to death.

Certainly, if anyone believes in God, then it's easy to see that God must
have been on the side of the terrorists that day because they seemed to be
able to accomplish their dream and we seemed to be taken aback by the
atrocitity of an immoral attack.

Those who died on 9/11 didn't have George W. Bush in mind as they either
plunged to their deaths, or died where they stood as they were filing, or
talking around the water cooler, or getting their morning reports done.
Those who died did so immediately, thank God. But their deaths weren't
because of some terrorist attack. Their deaths were because somehow America
didn't see the possibility of terrorist attacks as being effective. In the
words of Frank Zappa, although for a different reasons "It can't happen
here". In the words of Condilezza Rice "No one could have foreseen that
terrorists would use airplanes as weapons", when, in fact the Hart-Rudman
study on terrorism said just exatly that. Gee, Connie, I suppose you didn't
read the reports.

I watch there images of destruction, of personal loss, of efforts of
humanity to help others, and what do I see? I see destruction, personal
loss and efforts of humatity to help others, and it has nothing to do with
George W. Bush.

The reason that I keep coming back to George W. Bush is that he didn't do
anything but make an appearance. New Yorkers did the job.

I don't think I can continue because this is just too hard to work through.
The worst day America experienced was GW on the firetruck, arm wrapped
around a 67 year old volunteer, saying that the whole world heard and those
responsible would pay.

And so Saddam is in jail.

Any questions?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Kendall
2004-09-05 01:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger W. Norman
Any questions?
What does this have to do with audio?

Kendall
Roger W. Norman
2004-09-05 02:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Hey, why don't you tell me why it doesn't apply to audio or to life as a
business in the first place. Tell me how what I'm talking about doesn't
effect your business, or others.

But then I guess you have only one thought in your mind, that being that
nothing that has to do with events today has anything to do with your
business. You'd much rather find out for free whether a 4050 sounds better
than a KSM 27 or whether 6" off the kick is better tha 5" or 7", all without
simply applying some of the stuff you've heard here in the first place.

What it has to do with audio is that without a society that can do audio,
there will only be Telefunkens on Bush's podium and people will march off to
wherever they march off to. And in case you didn't notice, people are
already marching off to where they march off to.

So that's what it has to do with audio.

"The saddest thing is that I didn't say anything at all."
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Post by Kendall
Post by Roger W. Norman
Any questions?
What does this have to do with audio?
Kendall
Kendall
2004-09-05 03:49:09 UTC
Permalink
"Roger W. Norman" <***@starpower.net> wrote in message news:413a75c4$0$19730$***@news.rcn.com...

Here, I'll fix where you top-posted to my reply so that the context couldn't
easily be followed-
Post by Roger W. Norman
Post by Kendall
Post by Roger W. Norman
Any questions?
What does this have to do with audio?
Hey, why don't you tell me why it doesn't apply to audio or to life as a
business in the first place. Tell me how what I'm talking about doesn't
effect your business, or others.
But then I guess you have only one thought in your mind, that being that
nothing that has to do with events today has anything to do with your
business. You'd much rather find out for free whether a 4050 sounds better
than a KSM 27 or whether 6" off the kick is better tha 5" or 7", all without
simply applying some of the stuff you've heard here in the first place.
What it has to do with audio is that without a society that can do audio,
there will only be Telefunkens on Bush's podium and people will march off to
wherever they march off to. And in case you didn't notice, people are
already marching off to where they march off to.
So that's what it has to do with audio.
"The saddest thing is that I didn't say anything at all."
Now, that we have all that in context, let me state that I did not read most
of your original post, once I realized it didn't relate to audio. I did,
however catch your final question, and I replied with my question. In your
answer here, I can see that yes, from a certain standpoint you do have some
relevant points. However, that is NOT why I come to this particular forum.
I come here for audio, and audio alone. I suggest that if you wish to carry
on OT posts (some of which aren't even marked as such, such as this one)
that you go start another newsgroup like rec.audio.political.discussions or
some such, and post a link to it here. That way, the people who DO want to
discuss those things can do so, and it will actually be ON TOPIC, unlike it
is here. Then, for those of us who don't wish to read off topic stuff won't
have to wade through the preponderance of OT posts where it is clearly
against the charter (as has been pointed out numerous times), and avoid the
flame-fests which benefit nobody, and turn audio professional against audio
professional. There are a number of people here who I have a lesser respect
for than if I had never heard (metaphorically speaking) them getting into
pointless flame wars over stuff that isn't supposed to be here in the first
place. Yes, I can understand wanting to discuss things like this, but it
does not belong here. Create somepace where it will be more apropos, and the
people who are interested will join you there.

If I knew you were a strict Vegan, and visited a Vegan meeting with you, how
appreciative would the group be if I stood up and began recounting how much
I like beef, and grilling pork? It would be out of place, would it not?
Therefore, I wouldn't do that, out of courtesy to the group at large. Now,
if it were a meeting of Beeflovers International, well those comments would
be appropriate.
This is a group of audio people, and yes, they have definite political
views. But, with certain exceptions, they don't usually discuss them unless
"goaded" into it, or inflamed by someone else's differing viewpoint.

As far as people marching off, yes, I've noticed that some of our members
here have gone away, remarking how it was a pity that this forum had to go
down the toilet as well. If we ALL try, we can change that. It would
require that certain persons refrained from starting OT posts in the first
place. Maybe we could try that for a while?

I repeat; It does not belong here. You have not changed that, or my
opinion about it. It does not belong here.

Kendall
Post by Roger W. Norman
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Post by Kendall
Kendall
George
2004-09-05 07:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kendall
I repeat; It does not belong here. You have not changed that, or my
opinion about it. It does not belong here.
Kendall
I absolutly belongs here, and in the food newsgroups and in the car
newsgroups, it belongs anywhere one can find anyone to tell it to
America is doing great evil
America is creating terroists with it policy
any only by voicing our concerns can we begin the massive duty of public
awareness that will be needed to effect a change from a warrior
president and staff to a peaceful president and staff
it is essential that we become the sand in the oyster
or a pearl will never be formed
this is bigger than audio
and it needs to be said
here and anywhere else people gather
George
Wayne
2004-09-05 15:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kendall
I repeat; It does not belong here. You have not changed that, or my
opinion about it. It does not belong here.
Kendall
I support the request to confine our comments to the topic of the newsgroup.

All of you who contribute your knowledge and expertise on audio.pro, I applaude
you and thank you for sharing same.

All of you who have the notion that I or anyone else is the least bit
interested in your political opinions are living in denial. If your ego is so
large that you believe you have something important to say that will change or
impact other people's view, you really do need to mature. If I need or seek
political advice, it certainly would not be on a newgroup designed for audio.

Your opinions aren't any more right or wrong than mine, therefore do not effect
change. Speak from an area of proven expertise and people will listen.

Once you guys get off topic, I cease to read what you submit. It's boring,
redundant, and takes up bandwidth.

Still adding to my killfile, relunctantly.


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-
ScotFraser
2004-09-05 16:34:02 UTC
Permalink
<< I support the request to confine our comments to the topic of the newsgroup.
All of you who contribute your knowledge and expertise on audio.pro, I applaude
you and thank you for sharing same.>>

Yeah, agreed, but...

<<All of you who have the notion that I or anyone else is the least bit
interested in your political opinions are living in denial. If your ego is so
large that you believe you have something important to say that will change or
impact other people's view, you really do need to mature. >>

I think that's a major misconception of why people post political topics here.
Audio people think about a lot more than just audio & obviously the current
political situation has a lot of people very concerned. That doesn't indicate
ego, it doesn't show immaturity, it doesn't mean anybody is trying to change
your view to theirs. It means they need to talk to somebody, & they feel this
group comprises a set of virtual friends.

<<Your opinions aren't any more right or wrong than mine, therefore do not
effect
change. Speak from an area of proven expertise and people will listen.>>

This here is a bunch of audio folk standing around the cooler. We're supposed
to mainly talk audio but other stuff does come into the conversation. You
needn't take offense at that, it's just what happens during conversation, the
subject wanders. Tune out when you're bored, gently nudge things back to the
topic, but telling people they can't discuss what's on their minds is just
going to fuel unnecessary anger. I'd say skip that which doesn't interest you.

<<Once you guys get off topic, I cease to read what you submit. It's boring,
redundant, and takes up bandwidth. Still adding to my killfile, relunctantly.>>

I probably read only 10 per cent of what's posted anymore. I'd prefer more
audio being discussed but I'm cool with people bringing out whatever's gotten
under their collar also. Just chill & participate in that which interests you,
ignore the rest. Your blood pressure doesn't need to get worked up about any of
this, it's only an internet newsgroup, nothing more.




Scott Fraser
Bob Cain
2004-09-05 20:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ScotFraser
I think that's a major misconception of why people post political topics here.
Audio people think about a lot more than just audio & obviously the current
political situation has a lot of people very concerned. That doesn't indicate
ego, it doesn't show immaturity, it doesn't mean anybody is trying to change
your view to theirs. It means they need to talk to somebody, & they feel this
group comprises a set of virtual friends.
Perfect summary of my interest in discussing these topics
here. I still support the idea of a rec.audio.pro.saloon
but not enough to do all the work I know is involved in
making that happen.


Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
John
2004-09-05 16:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
I absolutly belongs here, and in the food newsgroups and in the car
newsgroups, it belongs anywhere one can find anyone to tell it to
What is wrong with you? The people who share your viewpoint don't need
convincing. Those who disagree, well, you're only serving to piss them off.
Does fanatical, belligerant behaviour really accomplish anything? Take a
lesson from your own writings.

-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com
Blind Joni
2004-09-05 21:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
only by voicing our concerns can we begin the massive duty of public
awareness that will be needed to effect a change from a warrior
president and staff to a peaceful president and staff
Worked good in England before Churchill.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

ThePaulThomas
2004-09-05 15:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kendall
Now, that we have all that in context, let me state that I did not read most
of your original post, once I realized it didn't relate to audio. I did,
however catch your final question, and I replied with my question. In your
answer here, I can see that yes, from a certain standpoint you do have some
relevant points. However, that is NOT why I come to this particular forum.
I come here for audio, and audio alone. I suggest that if you wish to carry
on OT posts (some of which aren't even marked as such, such as this one)
that you go start another newsgroup like rec.audio.political.discussions or
some such, and post a link to it here. That way, the people who DO want to
discuss those things can do so, and it will actually be ON TOPIC, unlike it
is here. Then, for those of us who don't wish to read off topic stuff won't
have to wade through the preponderance of OT posts where it is clearly
against the charter (as has been pointed out numerous times), and avoid the
flame-fests which benefit nobody, and turn audio professional against audio
professional. There are a number of people here who I have a lesser respect
for than if I had never heard (metaphorically speaking) them getting into
pointless flame wars over stuff that isn't supposed to be here in the first
place. Yes, I can understand wanting to discuss things like this, but it
does not belong here. Create somepace where it will be more apropos, and the
people who are interested will join you there.
If I knew you were a strict Vegan, and visited a Vegan meeting with you, how
appreciative would the group be if I stood up and began recounting how much
I like beef, and grilling pork? It would be out of place, would it not?
Therefore, I wouldn't do that, out of courtesy to the group at large. Now,
if it were a meeting of Beeflovers International, well those comments would
be appropriate.
This is a group of audio people, and yes, they have definite political
views. But, with certain exceptions, they don't usually discuss them unless
"goaded" into it, or inflamed by someone else's differing viewpoint.
As far as people marching off, yes, I've noticed that some of our members
here have gone away, remarking how it was a pity that this forum had to go
down the toilet as well. If we ALL try, we can change that. It would
require that certain persons refrained from starting OT posts in the first
place. Maybe we could try that for a while?
I repeat; It does not belong here. You have not changed that, or my
opinion about it. It does not belong here.
Kendall
Kendall,
While I certainly agree with you that some topics do not belong on
this group I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for things to change. At
this point even when people _do_ stick to a strictly audio topic you
can expect someone like Phil Allison to show up and start attacking
people with assinine name calling and childish outbursts. Now I can
hardly tolerate reading the _audio_ threads because they contain
nearly as many bitter, venomous sentiments as the political threads
seem to inspire. There are way too many pissed off people with too
little self-control on this group lately. :-(
Pete Dimsman
2004-09-05 17:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ThePaulThomas
There are way too many pissed off people with too
little self-control on this group lately. :-(
It ain't just this group. Welcome to Bush's 21st century.
Ty Ford
2004-09-05 18:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kendall
As far as people marching off, yes, I've noticed that some of our members
here have gone away, remarking how it was a pity that this forum had to go
down the toilet as well. If we ALL try, we can change that. It would
require that certain persons refrained from starting OT posts in the first
place. Maybe we could try that for a while?
I repeat; It does not belong here. You have not changed that, or my opinion
about it. It does not belong here.
Kendall
Kendall, et al,

I couldn't agree more.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
killermike
2004-09-05 19:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger W. Norman
Hey, why don't you tell me why it doesn't apply to audio or to life as a
business in the first place. Tell me how what I'm talking about doesn't
effect your business, or others.
I agree, this isn't anything to do with audio. These are world events
which affect the whole world and everyone in the world to some extent.
So are other things - environmentalism would just be one example.

These threads are nearly always American-centric. Tell me, what would
you judge to have been the principle events this year in Norway? Should
rec.audio.pro be used as a forum to discuss them? America is 5% of the
worlds population.

Perhaps you should explicitly state exactly what you think RAP is for.
What is on topic, professional audio and 9/11 orientated politics?
Anything that interests you or anyone else?

Why don't you post these things into one of the politics groups? Why
have an hierarchy in Usenet if any group can be used to post threads on
any topic? I'm sure a lot of people come onto these groups to get away
from world events. I don't think that you could claim that these
political topics are not being raised in other forums and other mediums.

Sorry if I seem to getting at you but people not obeying the Usenet
hierarchy is a pet hate of mine. Maybe you could participate in the
political threads in other channels and place a pointer to the
discussion in this group? Then you could have the opinions of other
audio professionals.
--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
np:
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/Top_50_Films.html - favorite films
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s.html - alt.music.home-studio
Bob Cain
2004-09-05 20:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by killermike
Why don't you post these things into one of the politics groups?
Scott Fraser summarized the reason we do it here in an
earlier post.

Mike, if you are tired of hearing this just tell me to
bugger off, but you, among us, are the only one who knows
the ropes for setting up a new usenet group from the
exellent job you did with the h-s group. You would be a
real hero to a lot of people if you could turn that
expertise toward the establishment of a rec.audio.pro.saloon
group where these discussions could be partitioned but would
likely have the same participants.


Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Steven Sena
2004-09-05 06:50:38 UTC
Permalink
And the band plays on...
--
Steven Sena
XS Sound Recording
www.xssound.com
Post by Roger W. Norman
I have to say that I am no longer going to accept any reasons for not
expressing my viewpoints. I have never lost the anger of 9/11 nor have I
accepted the repercussions of a Bush mandated America.
I wrote William Pitt a couple of times about being the speaker of the dead,
but he only spoke for those who died in Iraq under a false mandate. I speak
for the dead of 9/11 and those that have died since.
One wonders just what would have made another hurl themselves from a 110
story window as if they might, under some special dispensation from God,
survive. Or perhaps it was simply a matter of not desiring to die from
burning to death.
Certainly, if anyone believes in God, then it's easy to see that God must
have been on the side of the terrorists that day because they seemed to be
able to accomplish their dream and we seemed to be taken aback by the
atrocitity of an immoral attack.
Those who died on 9/11 didn't have George W. Bush in mind as they either
plunged to their deaths, or died where they stood as they were filing, or
talking around the water cooler, or getting their morning reports done.
Those who died did so immediately, thank God. But their deaths weren't
because of some terrorist attack. Their deaths were because somehow America
didn't see the possibility of terrorist attacks as being effective. In the
words of Frank Zappa, although for a different reasons "It can't happen
here". In the words of Condilezza Rice "No one could have foreseen that
terrorists would use airplanes as weapons", when, in fact the Hart-Rudman
study on terrorism said just exatly that. Gee, Connie, I suppose you didn't
read the reports.
I watch there images of destruction, of personal loss, of efforts of
humanity to help others, and what do I see? I see destruction, personal
loss and efforts of humatity to help others, and it has nothing to do with
George W. Bush.
The reason that I keep coming back to George W. Bush is that he didn't do
anything but make an appearance. New Yorkers did the job.
I don't think I can continue because this is just too hard to work through.
The worst day America experienced was GW on the firetruck, arm wrapped
around a 67 year old volunteer, saying that the whole world heard and those
responsible would pay.
And so Saddam is in jail.
Any questions?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Roger W. Norman
2004-09-05 15:41:11 UTC
Permalink
I know. I just get so frustrated and like most people in life, they take it
out on the ones they love. So there you have it.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Post by Steven Sena
And the band plays on...
--
Steven Sena
XS Sound Recording
www.xssound.com
Post by Roger W. Norman
I have to say that I am no longer going to accept any reasons for not
expressing my viewpoints. I have never lost the anger of 9/11 nor have I
accepted the repercussions of a Bush mandated America.
I wrote William Pitt a couple of times about being the speaker of the dead,
but he only spoke for those who died in Iraq under a false mandate. I speak
for the dead of 9/11 and those that have died since.
One wonders just what would have made another hurl themselves from a 110
story window as if they might, under some special dispensation from God,
survive. Or perhaps it was simply a matter of not desiring to die from
burning to death.
Certainly, if anyone believes in God, then it's easy to see that God must
have been on the side of the terrorists that day because they seemed to be
able to accomplish their dream and we seemed to be taken aback by the
atrocitity of an immoral attack.
Those who died on 9/11 didn't have George W. Bush in mind as they either
plunged to their deaths, or died where they stood as they were filing, or
talking around the water cooler, or getting their morning reports done.
Those who died did so immediately, thank God. But their deaths weren't
because of some terrorist attack. Their deaths were because somehow America
didn't see the possibility of terrorist attacks as being effective. In the
words of Frank Zappa, although for a different reasons "It can't happen
here". In the words of Condilezza Rice "No one could have foreseen that
terrorists would use airplanes as weapons", when, in fact the Hart-Rudman
study on terrorism said just exatly that. Gee, Connie, I suppose you didn't
read the reports.
I watch there images of destruction, of personal loss, of efforts of
humanity to help others, and what do I see? I see destruction, personal
loss and efforts of humatity to help others, and it has nothing to do with
George W. Bush.
The reason that I keep coming back to George W. Bush is that he didn't do
anything but make an appearance. New Yorkers did the job.
I don't think I can continue because this is just too hard to work through.
The worst day America experienced was GW on the firetruck, arm wrapped
around a 67 year old volunteer, saying that the whole world heard and those
responsible would pay.
And so Saddam is in jail.
Any questions?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Peter Kaersaa <>
2004-09-05 14:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger W. Norman
I have to say that I am no longer going to accept any reasons for not
expressing my viewpoints. I have never lost the anger of 9/11 nor have I
Jesus, who cares about Your conscience in this AUDIO group.
Is it really so hard to find an audience that you have to use
this! AUDIO group.
--
/ Peter Kaersaa
Ty Ford
2004-09-05 18:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Dear Roger,

I never asked to to NOT opine, only to put it where it was appropriate.

You're obviously calling me out on this point. The fact that you fail to
recognize boundarys of the group and others in this group is the point.

That's your issue and, at your age, you'll likely die before correcting it.
I'm truly sorry about it, but like you, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
Call it your right if you wish. I'll call it Roger's Unsocialized Tragic
Flaw.

I will, however, continue to call you out on your flagrant abuse of the
charter of this newsgroup.

Very Truly Yours,

Ty Ford
Post by Roger W. Norman
I have to say that I am no longer going to accept any reasons for not
expressing my viewpoints. I have never lost the anger of 9/11 nor have I
accepted the repercussions of a Bush mandated America.
I wrote William Pitt a couple of times about being the speaker of the dead,
but he only spoke for those who died in Iraq under a false mandate. I speak
for the dead of 9/11 and those that have died since.
One wonders just what would have made another hurl themselves from a 110
story window as if they might, under some special dispensation from God,
survive. Or perhaps it was simply a matter of not desiring to die from
burning to death.
Certainly, if anyone believes in God, then it's easy to see that God must
have been on the side of the terrorists that day because they seemed to be
able to accomplish their dream and we seemed to be taken aback by the
atrocitity of an immoral attack.
Those who died on 9/11 didn't have George W. Bush in mind as they either
plunged to their deaths, or died where they stood as they were filing, or
talking around the water cooler, or getting their morning reports done.
Those who died did so immediately, thank God. But their deaths weren't
because of some terrorist attack. Their deaths were because somehow America
didn't see the possibility of terrorist attacks as being effective. In the
words of Frank Zappa, although for a different reasons "It can't happen
here". In the words of Condilezza Rice "No one could have foreseen that
terrorists would use airplanes as weapons", when, in fact the Hart-Rudman
study on terrorism said just exatly that. Gee, Connie, I suppose you didn't
read the reports.
I watch there images of destruction, of personal loss, of efforts of
humanity to help others, and what do I see? I see destruction, personal
loss and efforts of humatity to help others, and it has nothing to do with
George W. Bush.
The reason that I keep coming back to George W. Bush is that he didn't do
anything but make an appearance. New Yorkers did the job.
I don't think I can continue because this is just too hard to work through.
The worst day America experienced was GW on the firetruck, arm wrapped
around a 67 year old volunteer, saying that the whole world heard and those
responsible would pay.
And so Saddam is in jail.
Any questions?
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
reddred
2004-09-05 20:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger W. Norman
I have to say that I am no longer going to accept any reasons for not
expressing my viewpoints. I have never lost the anger of 9/11 nor have I
accepted the repercussions of a Bush mandated America.
OK.

Let me start by saying that your political posts, the ones I've read, tend
to be pretty well-thought-out and eloquent. That differentiates your posts
from certain others, and it's the content of 'evil-abusive-trollish' posts
that I have a problem with, not the off-topic nature of them. The 'evil'
posts happen in on-and-off-topic thread.

I'm one of those people that, the way the situaution is, doesn't care. I
only care inasmuch as my participating in political threads takes away from
;pro-audio' time which has been in short supply lately. If one out of twenty
threads is political, it doesn't bother me, and it's not even that frequent.
If it was above ten percent of the total threads, I'd start to feel
concerned.

I use two newsreaders on many different machines and universally have the
facility to 'sort by thread'. I ignore half the threads anyway, so a few
more to ignore doesn't bug me.

But there are other people's opinions to consider, and some people seem
really taken aback not so much by OT posts, but political OT posts. OTOH, I
agree with you in that these things are incredibly important for people to
discuss, and I feel that there are facts which need to be brought out, about
current events and hsitorical events, that are best reiterated as often as
possible in every possible media.

So there is a balancing act. Apparently Ty Ford is particualrly annoyed by
the political posts, and I think his feelings need to be respected. At the
same time, I think you have the right to post your thoughts about things you
care about, in a place where your friends hang out too. Maybe you guys
should compromise.

I don't think anybody should be tolerated who comes up and is downright
abusive, they need to clean up or get out. That's the problem right now IMO,
and usenet being what it is, it's difficult to control.

jb
Post by Roger W. Norman
I wrote William Pitt a couple of times about being the speaker of the dead,
but he only spoke for those who died in Iraq under a false mandate. I speak
for the dead of 9/11 and those that have died since.
One wonders just what would have made another hurl themselves from a 110
story window as if they might, under some special dispensation from God,
survive. Or perhaps it was simply a matter of not desiring to die from
burning to death.
Certainly, if anyone believes in God, then it's easy to see that God must
have been on the side of the terrorists that day because they seemed to be
able to accomplish their dream and we seemed to be taken aback by the
atrocitity of an immoral attack.
Those who died on 9/11 didn't have George W. Bush in mind as they either
plunged to their deaths, or died where they stood as they were filing, or
talking around the water cooler, or getting their morning reports done.
Those who died did so immediately, thank God. But their deaths weren't
because of some terrorist attack. Their deaths were because somehow America
didn't see the possibility of terrorist attacks as being effective. In the
words of Frank Zappa, although for a different reasons "It can't happen
here". In the words of Condilezza Rice "No one could have foreseen that
terrorists would use airplanes as weapons", when, in fact the Hart-Rudman
study on terrorism said just exatly that. Gee, Connie, I suppose you didn't
read the reports.
I watch there images of destruction, of personal loss, of efforts of
humanity to help others, and what do I see? I see destruction, personal
loss and efforts of humatity to help others, and it has nothing to do with
George W. Bush.
The reason that I keep coming back to George W. Bush is that he didn't do
anything but make an appearance. New Yorkers did the job.
I don't think I can continue because this is just too hard to work through.
The worst day America experienced was GW on the firetruck, arm wrapped
around a 67 year old volunteer, saying that the whole world heard and those
responsible would pay.
And so Saddam is in jail.
Any questions?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Loading...