Please don't judge us by the actions of our government. Even if "we" had
legally elected the Shrub, it would have been by a very small margin. Not a
rousing mandate from the people. At least almost half of us who voted voted
against him. More disturbing to me is the large numbers of people who didn't
vote at all - they've given up (perhaps justifyably)trying to influence the
And Shrub only got into office the first time via a vote of the US Supreme
Court, not a vote of the people. The second time was a little more legit,
but I blame that on the known tendency, at least in the US, of not changing
horses in midstream (i.e. don't change presidents in the middle of a war).
Not a tendency I agree with, but it does exist.
I do wonder if other governments, including yours, would or would not act as
arrogantly as ours does if they had the power to do so. History seems to
indicate that they would.
- I don't care one way or the other about the USa - it's a big foreign
country a little less than half way around the world from me and as such
- I like many of the yanks I've met individually, we seem to have much
- I dislike the rudeness and obnoxiousness of idiots like you Paul, who
trys to change a discussion into a personal attack.
Greg Procter spake thus:
Yeah, it did seem a bit uncalled-for. Shoot, I've had my disagreements
with you, and haven't hesitated to call you names, but I don't see the
point of throwing a sucker punch out of the blue.
Right now you're judging yourselves ;-)
The rest of us aren't up close so we judge the overall picture.
If you come to New Zealand 99.9% of New Zealanders would judge you as an
In places like Turkey I think it's different judging by the fact that we
have to keep explaining that we're not from the USa.
Perhaps if you stopped claiming to be a democratic nation? ;-)))
- we (New Zealand) hitched ourselves to Britain/Australia for our first
century and then the US since WWII. As such we maintained our British
- we cut some of the ties to Britain after our troops (also Australia)
were used as the spearhead at Galipoli during WWI.
- We cut some of our ties to the USa after Vietnam and then further over
the US stupidity/arrogance of nuclear armaments in the early 80s.
- With 4 million people we're too small to maintain any real level of
arrogance - we actually have to figure out how to co-exist with the rest
of the world.
There's no point in having discussions where we all agree with each
other - I'm sure I could find a needlepoint or crochet group locally if
that was what I wanted. ;-) OTOH my sexual preferences (100% straight)
racial derivation and bravery or otherwise under fire seem to me to be
irrelevant to the subject of model railways. I'd perhaps accept that
cultural background might be relevant, given our past disagreements =8^)
I was responding to Roger Aultmann's line:
"> >> More likely envy than hate."
It's a line that is frequently trotted out by yanks and I can only
imagine that it stems from your brainwashing - it certainly merits my
description of "unreasoning stupidity", or can you come up with some
reasoned justificationin support of it? Not just something that
satisfies you, but something, anything that might cause me envy?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:24:00 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Greg Procter instead replied:
Greg, you decried the personal attacks in a post and then did it
yourself. You got caught. Stop trying to weasel out of it by making
yet another personal attack on me. That's your style, mate. It's
what you do. Denying it or stating that you don't like it and then
doing it yourself has a name.
Show me where I've ever made a personal attack other than in response to
a personal attack initiated by others, yourself included.
"That sounds like unreasoning stupidity" is a comment relating to the
post, not an attack on the poster.
"you don't have anything to envy." is a statement which I believe to be
true in as much as Roger's response was to me and therefore begs a
comparison between the USa and New Zealand. It certainly seems to
deserve the "unreasoning" label which in turn deserves the "stupidity"
Greg admitted his reasons for hating the US long ago. He doesn't like
some trade agreement which, apparently, disallows him from selling his
mutton to the US.
Greg often changes the discussion, OT or not, to suit his political
agenda, which can be summed up as, "the USA is evil".
The disccusion was about "weird puritan hang-ups about politicians and sex".
Greg took the opportunity to go off on one of his "hate the US" rants.
Greg likes to "judge" the US, after all, we won't buy his tired old sheep.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:39:37 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Greg Procter instead replied:
A personal attack is a personal attack whether it's by origin or in
reply. You don't get it, do you? People here laugh at you when you
moan about others attacking you while you do it yourself in the very
next post you make.
You can't have it both ways, Greg. Either you demonstrate what you
preach or give it up. There's nothing at all wrong with a personal
attack. This newsgroup and many others are inhabited by (guess
what?) persons who sometimes get up each others' noses. It goes with
having an opinion. What is laughable is your attempt to squelch
anyone who disagrees with you by calling it a "personal attack"
until you disagree with someone and make a personal attack.
I'm absolutely positive that you won't have a clue or even a
glimmering of understanding of this concept but the fact is all you
have to do is stop using that nonsense in an attempt to stifle
disagreement while you do it yourself to (guess what?) stifle anyone
who disagrees with you.
Here's a clue for you, mate. Don't be a contentious idiot and you
won't suffer personal attacks. Get it?
You also invade sovereign nations and you use your political power to
gain advantage at the cost to those against whom you interfere.
Please get it into your tiny mind - I, like most people, don't hate the
USa, I hate what you do against other nations, including New Zealand.
Is your mind big enough to comprehend the difference?
You don't get it, do you?
My replies may well return personal attacks in response to personal
attacks, but they also contain reasoned responses where there is
something that can be reasoned with.
Of course there is something wrong with a personal attack that has no
basis in fact.
Where is there _any_ reason in a comment like "More likely envy than
You keep on with these comments such as 'hating the USa' and 'Envy'.
They are plain unreasoning stupidity.
So I shouldn't argue against unreasoning acceptance of DCC hype? even
when the beginner might be better off with simpler, cheaper and less
trouble prone DC?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:14:25 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Greg Procter instead replied:
Oh, I get it, Greg. So do most others here. You cannot moan about
personal attacks when you do them. No matter the reason. You can't
justify personal attacks for you while declaring them unreasonable
for someone else. That's just plain stupid and hypocritical. Is that
what you want others to see you as? Remember, nobody here can sit
down and get to know the real Greg Procter. All we see is what you
present. You might be the nicest guy on the planet but you sure
don't put that image forward here.
The image of Greg that I see is one of a hypocritical crybaby who
pretends to know it all but really doesn't know much at all.
Of course I can. You as a yank surely understand the concept of defence?
Where are these personal attacks you claim come from me? Go back and
analyse them and you'll see they are responses relating to the comments
posted, not to the poster.
Is that a personal attack or a statement relating to the point of
I suggest you don't know the difference, even when I spell it out to you
in the simplest of terms.
If anyone here is stupid enough to judge the quality of my advice purely
on my responses to the likes of you then they don't deserve to receive
Have you any idea of your own image here? Time after time you've
responded to my attempts to give honest advice with derission and
insults - I'm still responding to you in a rational manner - that should
give others a good idea of my character.
I won't bother responding to that.