Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (2050)	10/1/2001 2:09:23 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As a lurker who has been discouraged by the volume of copyposting, I vote for #5: We could require that every item be accompanied with a poster-created summary and/or analysis suggesting why this item is important, what it means and to who, what effect this may have on future policy decisions for the USA and other nations. and would further suggest that the copypost itself be limited to a link. >> Please bear in mind -- this thread is NOT a world events and history FREE-FOR-ALL. There is no shortage of "chat room" discussion sites on SI. Thanks for your efforts to maintain and focus this one at a higher level. uf

To: FaultLine who wrote (2050)	10/1/2001 2:25:18 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

too many lengthy articles in lieu of substantive personal interaction and discourse For what it's worth, I have almost precisely the opposite reaction. I come to this thread to see the links to articles which FL, tekboy, Jill, and others post. Whatever suggestions/rules are put in place, I will be disappointed if it reduces that. As for the personal interaction, not to be to personal, but I would rather lose much of it than much of the posting. Now, having said that, some of the posted articles are simply too long for this forum, in my view. Somebody posted a three or four parter, each part of which drug on and on. I skimmed but it still took a bit. How about encouraging links. I posted a link to an interview with David Halberstam on Salon a couple of days ago because it was quite long; and a link to a rather long Slate article digging deep into the arguments for an Iraq connection. So why not encourage more links and less full text postings? John

To: FaultLine who wrote (2050)	10/1/2001 2:43:08 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

FaultLine and All~~ In my zeal to let folks know about the link below, I decided to spend time sending it to all of you in its entirety...yes, it took time. And I'm truly sorry I couldn't fix the format to arrive any better to you. However, I did provide the links for you in the first place. (see part 1 and again below) Read it or not, your choice. Some people want a quick fix. This doesn't appear to have one. The article however, certainly does link Foreign Affairs, Terrorism, and the Future. KLP Terrorism, the Future, and U.S. Foreign Policy Updated March 23, 2001 Raphael F. Perl Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division fpc.gov fpc.gov

To: FaultLine who wrote (2050)	10/1/2001 3:00:42 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

For starters, Ken, I'd like to see a toning down of personal attacks. I know when I write, I often don't go back and screen every last phrase to see if it might say something to a super hawk that triggers their ire. Most of the posters here are Americans and they share the view that the murderers and shelterers of murderers should be eliminated. How to do that, and how to prevent recurrence, and errors of the US government are places where disagreements occur. But too many times, I've seen people go ballistic, championing their patriotism as the only true patriotism and-how-dare-anyone-think-unlike-me-they-must-be-scum type posts do not add to the discussion; they intimidate discourse with their polemics. As to the numerous articles, sometimes I see duplication, indicating the poster has not read back very far at all. Long, intense quoted analyses sometimes cause my eyes to glaze over and I skim, trying to get the nut of the piece. In such cases, it might work better to copypost the conclusions only, with a link to the analysis, so we can read them only if the conclusions are new enough to instigate an understanding of the logic. And of course, one I'm guilty of: if the reply is merely complimenting another, a PM would be a better vehicle. Of articles posted, I least like to see those that are a reiteration of "terrorist bad - kill them twice" from the same hawkish sources no-longer-taxpayer-supported whose thinking on Afghanistan clearly contributed to the mess. I refer to the Kilpatrick, Kemp, Bennett crowd; I'd rather hear from newer hawks like Wolfowitz. I'd be just as disgusted if Jane Fonda and Eugene McCarthy weighed in.... they knee-jerk uncontrollably without adding an original or current thought. kevin@Icanblahblahblahwiththebestoft.hem

To: FaultLine who wrote (2050)	10/1/2001 3:28:56 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

As a lurker, I wanted to say a couple of things. The copyposting is long, but serves a purpose, because links tend to expire, especially to newspaper and periodical publications where new content replaces old. Also, I have found that a lot of linked sites are blocked from my office, but SI is not. Perhaps a companion thread for the copyposting might work.....summarize the article here, link it to the other SI thread created for that purpose, and then it would remain as long as SI does. Good thread overall....if it doesn't change at all, that's ok too.

To: FaultLine who wrote (2050)	10/1/2001 5:14:08 PM
From: Jill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Faultline, I kind of agree w/ John M that so much is wortwhile, and like Unc Frank's idea, although even a one line summary is enough, and sometimes headlines of articles tell you (as in Profits for Prophets I have been skimming and skipping over much because it's too much to read but I think we all have our personal areas of interest and its nice to know so much is available here. This is an invaluable information resource. When you're reading 10 messages at a time you can easily skim