You are selectively parsing my words and twisting them deliberately, which is odd when you quoted them yourself. Let me post them here, with emphasis:
(emphasis added)
Don’t twist my words again. If you can’t make your point without those sorts of stunts then why bother posting?
Oh, I agree; don’t think I believe Bush is to blame for the incident more than the moronic school admins. But he had a hand in making this “with us or against us” attitude as prevalent as it is today, and that should not be ignored.
From your link (emphasis added):
So Bush is also responsible when idiots take his statements out of context? Interesting.
And what leads you to the conclusion that the school administrators were in any way influenced by this one sentence in this one statement? I mean, other than your desire to chunk stones at Bush at every opportunity.
Ah yes, that crazy “stunt” of quoting someone’s word verbatim and asking them for clarification. :rolleyes:
If you were merely questioning whether the Bush regime did in fact influence this principal, then the language you used is extremely awkward. Apparently you have some problem with the word “regime,” because you repeatedly put it in quotes, which leads me to believe that you are unaware that it is a synonym for “administration.” Perhaps if you substituted the word “administration” you would see how poorly worded your statements were: e.g., “I wanted to know exactly which administration was responsible for this, since there isn’t actually one.”
I don’t think anyone claimed that the Bush administration is directly responsible, but its followers are. (Or is there some question as to the principal’s political leanings?) The only question is whether the regime is indirectly responsible for the actions of its followers.
Now, now, be nice. If Una insists on acting like a reasonable human being, I am going to respond in kind.
Plainly, we were arguing two different points. Una, you were taking Cisco’s statement in relation to the OP. I was judging it on its own merits. No wonder we disagreed.
I can dig it. Unfortunately, I do not necessarily agree with the statement. Plainly, there is a “Bush regime,” if you wanna define this term to be equivalent with “Bush Administration.” Admittedly, the word “regime” is a bit inflammatory.
Based on the OP, I must consider that the President, by way of his rhetoric and tone of his presidency, has influenced this knuckle-dragging fool of a principal into trampling the civil rights of his employees. In all fairness, though, it would not necessarily have to be Bush. Seems like the knuckle-dragger in question would likely have stomped anyone who disagreed with his personal politics, be it pro-Bush, pro-Gore, pro-McCain, or pro-Santa Claus.
Knuckle-draggers of this particular sort often get pretty inflamed by the idea that we are at war, I’ve noticed. Anyone seen that email that was circulating a while back, with the WWII art and banners reading, “SHUT THE F**K UP LIBERAL &%$#@S WHILE *WE * DEFEND AMERICA!”?
Apparently, there is something about the idea of us being at war that absolutely drives some Americans nutso. Dissent – *in any form * – towards the Government, the administration in power, or the reasons for going to war in the first place is taken by these chumps as anything from “disrespect for our troops, fightin’ and dyin’ for their country,” to “treason.”
So, yeah, even if you don’t like my remark about “the rhetoric and tone of the Bush presidency,” I can still blame the guy for starting this damnfool war and sending all the reactionaries into berserko-land. But did he call this principal up and tell him to fire people for not censoring poetry?
No.
Like I said earlier: debatable. I can’t shut Una down, because I am uncertain that she is entirely wrong. Plus, it depends on the specific point you’re debating. This AIN’T a simple issue.
I do find the remark about “Bush bashing polluting the board” a bit worrisome, though. I don’t bash Republicans. I’m a Republican. I don’t bash Congress. I bash the hell out of Bush, though, because I don’t like what he has done and is doing to my country.
How, precisely, is this “polluting the board?”
Your parsing the quote wrongly.
She is saying there isn’t a regime responsible for this. She is NOT saying there is no regime, period.
And the answer would be… only marginally.
There are a million things to Blame on Bush. There are a million more important issues in the world than what some dimwit principal wants to do with his high school. They’re not ALL Bush’s fault, no matter how pervasive we may think his philosophy to be.
His “followers” aren’t lemmings. They thought this way before the man became president, in all liklihood.
I knew he was talking about countries and not people; it was the attitude I was referring to. I believe people hear that statement, and even if they know it was about countries, they still latch onto the “with us or against us” idea in the broad sense.
Since I did not say they were influenced by “that one sentence”, but only used it as an example of Bush fostering the “with us or against us attitude”, you question is invalid.
Just curious, do you really associate my name as someone who bashes Bush “at every opportunity”?
Oh, and is this quote better?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020611-13.html
I see no qualifying here of him speaking of nations, and not individuals.
I parsed the quote?? I included exactly the same quote you did, with no parsing. Do not accuse me of things I did not do.
Do you not see how it is very strange to say “I dispute that there is a Bush administration that could influence a local school principal” instead of “I dispute that the Bush administration could influence a local school principal”?
Una:
A leaf takes a trip to the Smithsonian and pisses on the constitution (if the original isn’t there right now I’m sure they have a copy.)
I post:
You ask: “Why are you blaming this on the tree?!!”
Well, you see, I’m not blaming it on the tree, but if you want to believe that I’m an unconditional, irrational tree-hater then I won’t be able to convince you otherwise. Decide for yourself.
You might not understand what “parse” means. Parse means to “examine in a minute way.” Are you saying you did not do this? That may be the problem, then.
To be a little clearer, all I’m saying is that I think you misinterpreted the quote.
Una (unless I’m misinterpreting her myself) is saying that she doubts the current administration/regime/fiefdom had any real influence on this principal. Sure, the government might influence a principal (perhaps pretty directly, if they wanted to), but I really don’t see evidence here that it’s done so.
Borborygmus bovines!*
I don’t want to godwinise this thread yet. Perhaps someone can suggest what educational institution outside of Nazi Germany, the Spanish Inquisition, or Maoist China, where it is done to destroy a creative work** because it doesn’t share the politics of the ruling party, and I won’t have to.
*Yeah, I know it’s the pit. ‘Fuck’ just isn’t sufficient here.
**I liked it. But I realise it’s not very good objectively. But it’s still poetry.
I’m not sure this clarification is necessary, but “parsing” usually involves breaking something down into parts. It sounded like you were saying that I broke it down in some incorrect way.
If you find those statements to be completely unambiguous and logical, good for you.
Jojo Momo: “WHAT THE FUCK, AMERIKKKA!?!”
A few general rules- dudes that spell America with a K are either stupid, illiterate or trying to be offensive. Thise that spell it with 3 Ks are at least two of the the above. Starting an inflammatory OP, then not replying to any of the posts is a definition of “trolling”.
So- tell me why I should even bother to read the OP (I haven’t) , let alone make an intelligent reply? Una, Dan, and most of the others here. You guys know better. No food for this guy, OK? :rolleyes:
Master Wang-Ka: I do see your point and understand what you are saying. Hopefully, unless I’ve misinterpreted your post, it looks like you see the point I was trying to make. The thing is, when you post in detail there is very little I disagree with you on, on most topics. Perhaps I could have been more verbose in my very first post. Like I said, I think Cisco is a fine guy who made an off-the-cuff remark I took exception to, and I have no intention of flogging this out with him.
Very strange? I don’t know, I’m not an Editor nor an English major, just a scientist - maybe I don’t write very well. I certainly don’t see it as incomprehensible, especially when I elaborated exactly on what I meant in this very thread. But chula, just never mind. I have explained to the best of my ability, and you have understood to the best of your ability. One or both of us is failing, and although I don’t quite agree, the weight of popular opinion in this thread indicates it is me. I don’t know what point there will be in further discussion other than to get people angry at each other, and I’m just in too good of a mood to be angry.
Thank you, Dan, for trying to explain what I was saying.
DrDeth - you know, I said to myself earlier “Do I even want to post to a thread with KKK in the title?” I should have listened to myself. Now I’ll say mea culpa.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Do you also not know what “interpret” means? Among its connotations is the act of “breaking down” a statement to determine its meaning. Your initial use of “parse” (though not terribly relevant to the OP in general) seemed to express incredulity that I was saying you had parsed the quote. (I think you thought I was accusing you of reproducing the quote incorrectly, which is far from my intent.)
dantheman wrote:
Ahem. Not to get terribly off topic, but there is no such thing as a true poem. Poems may be good or bad according to tastes, but they are not so according to how well they reflect some Platonic ideal, and they are especially not more or less true in some quality of being poetry.
That just addresses the basic problem of defining poetry. As for what counts as good poetry, I would argue that being entertaining is more to the point of poetry than being “crafted over time” or “read on more than one level.” No matter how deep or careful a poet may be, the poem has already failed if it bores the audience, because no one will give it the attention it takes to see all the levels of meaning and the clever craftsmanship. The perverse way we study poetry, as something more to be thought about than enjoyed, has led us to the state we’re in now in which hardly anybody takes enough interest in poetry to find out how rich and complex it can be.
You’re right, there’s no such beast as a true poem. Like all artwork, poetry is entirely subjective. There are plenty of limericks and haikus that “work” better than free-form or conventional poems. (And, of course, there are plenty of crappy “true” poems.)
A poem has failed only if it bored all of the audiences. Two people could read the same poem and have entirely different reactions to it. I could read a poem about lost socks to a Rotary Club and get no reaction; read it to a group of tenth graders, and I might get a positive response. Or vice versa.
elmwood, do not post RL phone numbers or addresses or names on the SDMB. Your intent was clear, even though you tried to apply some weasel words.
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
But that’s not a private, unlisted number… does that matter? Or should we just not post any phone numbers?