The keyboard is mightier than the machine gun... The political, philosophical and general outpourings of a troubled soul living in Australia and blogging his Vietnam veteran's head off.
Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...
posted by The Editor at
9:56 PM
The counter shown below displays the number of Israeli military personnel refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories. I applaud their integrity and their strength of character. To me they are heroes of peace and humanity.
8 Comments:
I note that you've added Malalai Joya next to Martin Luther King Jr. Sometimes when trying to think about something to consider the logical inverse.
Martin Luther King Jr: "Our lives begin the day we speak out about things that matter."
Malalai Joya: "The actions of good people silence bad people."
Orright, I took a few liberties with Malalai Joya; the exact logical inverse is too trite to mean anything.
Expert logicians who wish to correct my inversions can dump their spite and spleen over there ------>
My first reaction to your comment, Andrew?
"Pearls before swine."
Well, Gerry, assuming you are referring to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and not to the rather bizarre and possibly not very good Richard Wolstencraft film, then I takes umbrage, I does. You set the following rules: you post something, then you sit back and wait for a response, and you don't post anything else until you get a response. Presumably if you post something that doesn't garner a response, you'll quietly fold up the blog and slip away.
I have added the following rule as far as my contribution is concerned: I will post a response if anyone else responds and I have something that I think is worthy to contribute. Additionally, if no-one else has responded after 3 days, I will post something as contrary as I can consistent with my beliefs in the hope of starting some sort of debate.
It is impossible for a civilised person to disagree with Malalai Joya's epigram. However, if you treat it as a call to arms for the 'silent majority', you want to be careful what you wish for – you may discover an army of Tea Party followers.
So, Malalai Joya. Good. Great. Correct. Whatever. Next post please.
Umbrage freely given to those who wish to take it, Andrew. ;-)
Nice rant. Hit a nerve, did I?
Please lie down on the couch and relax...
You seem to think that comments which are not made from a position of disagreement are somehow banal and unwarranted.
Now, about my "rules" for this blog, if you wish to discuss them, or my application of them, or your suggested additions to them, please go back to _that_ blog item and discuss it there.
I'll be only too happy to workshop it with you. :-)
Now, untwist your knickers, get up off my couch, wipe it clean, and pay at the desk before making your next appointment.
Thank you. ;-)
. For the avoidance of doubt:
I'm not peeved, I haven't really taken umbrage and that wasn't a rant – trust me, when I rant it goes on for pages.
I don't need to have a debate with you about your blog rules. It's your blog, you can make whatever rules you want, and the ones you have chosen to apply make perfect sense to me. I have posted the additional rules I have imposed on myself as a comment to your original post about your rules, as you suggest.
You will also find there a slightly longer explanation for adopting a contrarian position on occasion.
Andrew, darling... you said:
"Well, Gerry, assuming you are referring to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, [...] then I takes umbrage, I does."
You're confusing me... :-)
Definitely not trying to confuse you on this occasion, Gerry, so I'm probably just not expressing myself well. I do note that a clause has totally vanished from my original response, can't explain why.
You offered Malalai Joya's epigram for our appreciation, calling it a 'gem'. I responded by pointing out that one test of the truth of a statement is to examine its logical inverse and see whether that is meaningful or meaningless. I did that with both your Martin Luther King Jr quote and your Malalai Joya quote, showing that the former retains both its meaning and its poetry when inverted while the latter doesn't. That doesn't mean it is untrue, merely that it needs to be examined more carefully.
You responded by saying 'Pearls before swine', implying that I had failed to grasp the beauty of the Malalai Joya quote.
And I responded to that by pointing out that 'Pearls before swine' can mean many things, including a not-very-good Australian movie, but I was going to take it at its most usual meaning, when Jesus, giving the Sermon on the Mount, as reported in Matthew 7:6, said:
“ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. “
So I said if you thought I was too pig-like to grasp the pearl before me, I took umbrage. I phrased it in such a light-hearted way as to make it clear I wasn't really offended (I hope). It is a great pity, at least for the sake of the poetry in this discussion, that a pearl is technically not a gem.
First you say you take umbrage.
Then you say you don't.
Now you say you do.
You are confusing me.
Logic? Meh.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========