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: JohnM who wrote (37970)	8/15/2002 2:35:23 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

I'm sure the Saudi's will be pleased with this... news.bbc.co.uk

To: JohnM who wrote (37970)	8/15/2002 2:49:25 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Or are you getting too old to learn? ;-)) Oh boy, wise cracks about "old guys" really gets my dander up... --fl@cranky.com ;o)

To: JohnM who wrote (37970)	8/15/2002 2:53:05 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your turn. I don't see it as a matter of "Good" or "Bad," but I believe it is a fair reading of our posts here the last few months. Perhaps if Gore was President, it would be the opposite. neither the versions of pomo I like nor my personal approach to things takes that position. Again, read Rorty. I have been responding to you, and I have read what I could of Rorty on line. What I am getting from both of you is, "don't make me define my terms!" Rorty states that he wants to use different definitions for how we should deal with our private life vs how we deal with our public life. >>>Rorty often makes the case that we live in two worlds: the public and the private. In these circumstances, we have many options for private projects, unfettered by the state, in language, art, and writing, as well as the opportunity to refine our ideas, metaphors, and methods of discourse in public arenas.<<< geocities.com I find that practically everyone in the "PoMo" world wants to keep things as vague as possible, so as to be able to wiggle off the hook.

To: JohnM who wrote (37970)	8/15/2002 6:22:01 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

either you have not heard, chosen not to hear, forgot, or whatever Since I posted last on this subject, I have been to Borders, browsed some Rorty essays, (and read a good bit of the new "Jance", Detective J.P. Beaumont is back!) I realized I had missed a point. "PoMo" came up to start with, I believe, because it is the precursor of "Post Colonialism." These really color all of the Foreign Policy decisions, as they studied by the people who become our Foreign policy experts. When this subject came up, I found a definition of Pomo, and posted it. You told me that this was not the definition you used. I went and found another, from a major book on the subject written by an Professor who was accepted in Academia. You informed me that definition was off too. When I posted a response to Win and mentioned the subject, you posted that I just was not learning from you, and wanted me to read Rorty. I read some Rorty, and found him just as vague as you have been. I believe the definitions I have posted are the accepted ones in Academia. They lead to the conclusions I have posted. I suspect you have protested because you don't like the conclusions. The way to clear this up is for you to post your definitions, and then we will know what you mean when we talk about this subject.

To: JohnM who wrote (37970)	8/16/2002 9:28:39 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I've often wondered why it is that some folks who advocate aggressive military action promote the view that the US is considered to be weak. And after the world learns all over again that the US is strong, and perfectly capable, the same folks indicate that we must be aggressive again, because the world thinks we are weak. Those who counter the argument are then labelled. Identified as liberals, weak, US-haters, ignorant, or whatever. Categorized so they can be dismissed as irrelevant and wrong. Over time, many of the dismissed reach a point of finding more useful pursuits. They take their arguments to where it might have the influence of ideas on an audience not confined to a single track. What is left behind is a group of yes-folk, eager to demonstrate the US is not weak, forever. It is not enough to demonstrate that the US can outkill any challenger; we must repeat it often. And between the conflicts, everything gets repeated often. Because repeating it aloud enough will make it so. Quantity passes as truth, not quality. I see this a lot, in different places.