Home Page link

Re: The value of shopping local

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 8 of 17       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: The value of shopping local Amy Blankenship 11-11-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 30, 2007, 2:32 pm

> As above. Meanwhile, I do hope you are not implying that I'm some sort
> of "violence enabler", becasue that would be rather an insult, becasue it
> would be defamatory (i.e., a flasehood, a lie, an attack).

It's not aimed at anyone in particular. Provision of an safe arena is
important for that sort of thing to flourish. That's what I believe, and it
guides my actions.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke
-----------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Davis: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey?
Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys
together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain
things to them.

Socialite: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed
page of the Times, it is devastating.

Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks
and baseball bats really gets right to the point.

Woody Allen, "Manhattan"



Radiant Heat 468x60
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 30, 2007, 3:25 pm

>
>> As above. Meanwhile, I do hope you are not implying that I'm some
>> sort of "violence enabler", becasue that would be rather an insult,
>> becasue it would be defamatory (i.e., a flasehood, a lie, an attack).
>
> It's not aimed at anyone in particular. Provision of an safe arena is
> important for that sort of thing to flourish. That's what I believe,
> and it guides my actions.

THat's wha I thought, but I have to check these things becasue I really do
not have "social instincts". OTOH, you cvould be lying, and I'd never knwo
it <LOL!>, so I choose to assume honesty ;)


> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
> nothing." Edmund Burke
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Isaac Davis: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New
> Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there,
> get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and
> really explain things to them.
>
> Socialite: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the
> op-ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
>
> Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but
> bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
>
> Woody Allen, "Manhattan"
>
>
>


Posted by Warm Worm on November 30, 2007, 6:49 pm
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>>> What's so extreme about:
>>>>
>>>> carrying personal nukes,
>>>>
>>>> abolishing all cities,
>>>>
>>>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>>>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>>>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher education
>>>> because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at 12, and no
>>>> one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds there own
>>>> business until he thinks they aren't living up to their patriotic
>>>> duty.
>>> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things when
>>> he's frustrated.
>> I suspect that too:
>> Instead of some saying, "Hey! I resent that! And this is why:...", and
>> owning up to their own inner emotions, they'll append them onto the
>> subjects like a sticky note and say stuff like, "oxymoron!".
>
> Be that as it may, in the context of a discussion, saying what you mean,
> meaning what you say, conceding when you're mistaken, and generally
> recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, are essential
> prerequisites of credibility. IMHO 'discussions' with persons without
> credibility is useful only as a kind of sparring- a contest of rhetorical
> skills- but not really otherwise. Discussions with such persons who do not
> even possess significant rhetorical skills will often just degenerate
> quickly into something like, "All blue should be abolished, and anyone who
> doesn't realize that is a plain poo poo head!"

In some discussions with Don with some things, I simply feel like I'm
debating Christianity with a Christian missionary, hence my previous new
thread.

BTW, I think I came across another code-bubble, but I forget where. But
maybe it was just from a dream...
(Michael, were you online here when I posted that? It was an
architectural element, of a hotel in Vancouver, gone funky.)

> Saying something stupid (whether frustrated or not), and then defending that
> position just because it's yours (for whatever emotional reasons), is not a
> discussion IMHO. It's stupidity followed by rationalization. Threatening
> people who disagree with you is bullying, and I can't stand it. Never could.

Ah yes, the contortions of face-saving...
One would think that someone in his fifties would more or less be beyond
that-- assuming you're insinuating Don.
Maybe it's face-saving and maybe he really believes it. Either way...

> As a kid, if I saw some bully picking on someone else, often before I could
> stop myself, I'd end up 'having words' with the bully. As an adult, I've
> taken down a couple of big ones over the years, usually on election for that
> purpose by groups to which I belonged.

Bully for you.

> Anyone with youngish kids is familiar with the recent efforts to reduce
> bullying, which identify permissive 'bystanders' as an essential part of the
> bullying cycle. In a community (something I believe in) we're better off if
> a bully is marked as such, and if persons who promote violence against
> others know that they do not have the support of the group, which is what
> these types really need. Silence can be seen by them, and later by history,
> as consent for their cruelty.

Points well taken, and of course then there're the bullying-environments
those who bully often live in... Can a community bully?

I wonder how to deal with a bullying government.

Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 1, 2007, 7:48 am

> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>>>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>>>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>>>> What's so extreme about:
>>>>>
>>>>> carrying personal nukes,
>>>>>
>>>>> abolishing all cities,
>>>>>
>>>>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>>>>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>>>>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher education
>>>>> because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at 12, and no
>>>>> one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds there own
>>>>> business until he thinks they aren't living up to their patriotic
>>>>> duty.
>>>> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things when
>>>> he's frustrated.
>>> I suspect that too:
>>> Instead of some saying, "Hey! I resent that! And this is why:...", and
>>> owning up to their own inner emotions, they'll append them onto the
>>> subjects like a sticky note and say stuff like, "oxymoron!".
>>
>> Be that as it may, in the context of a discussion, saying what you mean,
>> meaning what you say, conceding when you're mistaken, and generally
>> recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, are essential
>> prerequisites of credibility. IMHO 'discussions' with persons without
>> credibility is useful only as a kind of sparring- a contest of rhetorical
>> skills- but not really otherwise. Discussions with such persons who do
>> not even possess significant rhetorical skills will often just degenerate
>> quickly into something like, "All blue should be abolished, and anyone
>> who doesn't realize that is a plain poo poo head!"
>
> In some discussions with Don with some things, I simply feel like I'm
> debating Christianity with a Christian missionary, hence my previous new
> thread.
>
> BTW, I think I came across another code-bubble, but I forget where. But
> maybe it was just from a dream...
> (Michael, were you online here when I posted that? It was an architectural
> element, of a hotel in Vancouver, gone funky.)
>
>> Saying something stupid (whether frustrated or not), and then defending
>> that position just because it's yours (for whatever emotional reasons),
>> is not a discussion IMHO. It's stupidity followed by rationalization.
>> Threatening people who disagree with you is bullying, and I can't stand
>> it. Never could.
>
> Ah yes, the contortions of face-saving...
> One would think that someone in his fifties would more or less be beyond
> that-- assuming you're insinuating Don.
> Maybe it's face-saving and maybe he really believes it. Either way...
>
>> As a kid, if I saw some bully picking on someone else, often before I
>> could stop myself, I'd end up 'having words' with the bully. As an adult,
>> I've taken down a couple of big ones over the years, usually on election
>> for that purpose by groups to which I belonged.
>
> Bully for you.
>
>> Anyone with youngish kids is familiar with the recent efforts to reduce
>> bullying, which identify permissive 'bystanders' as an essential part of
>> the bullying cycle. In a community (something I believe in) we're better
>> off if a bully is marked as such, and if persons who promote violence
>> against others know that they do not have the support of the group, which
>> is what these types really need. Silence can be seen by them, and later
>> by history, as consent for their cruelty.
>
> Points well taken, and of course then there're the bullying-environments
> those who bully often live in... Can a community bully?
>
> I wonder how to deal with a bullying government.

It's a personal choice of course, but helping them or "minding your own
business" is probably how they'd prefer you do it.



Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 1, 2007, 8:23 am

> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>>>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>>>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>>>> What's so extreme about:
>>>>>
>>>>> carrying personal nukes,
>>>>>
>>>>> abolishing all cities,
>>>>>
>>>>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>>>>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>>>>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher education
>>>>> because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at 12, and no
>>>>> one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds there own
>>>>> business until he thinks they aren't living up to their patriotic
>>>>> duty.
>>>> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things when
>>>> he's frustrated.
>>> I suspect that too:
>>> Instead of some saying, "Hey! I resent that! And this is why:...", and
>>> owning up to their own inner emotions, they'll append them onto the
>>> subjects like a sticky note and say stuff like, "oxymoron!".
>>
>> Be that as it may, in the context of a discussion, saying what you mean,
>> meaning what you say, conceding when you're mistaken, and generally
>> recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, are essential
>> prerequisites of credibility. IMHO 'discussions' with persons without
>> credibility is useful only as a kind of sparring- a contest of rhetorical
>> skills- but not really otherwise. Discussions with such persons who do
>> not even possess significant rhetorical skills will often just degenerate
>> quickly into something like, "All blue should be abolished, and anyone
>> who doesn't realize that is a plain poo poo head!"
>
> In some discussions with Don with some things, I simply feel like I'm
> debating Christianity with a Christian missionary, hence my previous new
> thread.
>
> BTW, I think I came across another code-bubble, but I forget where. But
> maybe it was just from a dream...
> (Michael, were you online here when I posted that? It was an architectural
> element, of a hotel in Vancouver, gone funky.)