US Military Dead during Iraq War 1847

rpl I Usenet ?

Spare time? Hobby? 'Tis not my place to presume what you do or don't do elsewhere...

posted

Simple answer to that one: This is a public forum...you and I are not the sole people who get to see postings...I am always mindful of the wider audience too...I am speaking to you but this doesn't mean that some comments aren't in there for the sake of the "wider audience" to follow along...

Indeed, presenters on TV often do something similar...they are interviewing an "expert" on some subject...and they themselves did their "research" on the subject, so they too basically know what the "expert" is talking about...but, as a TV presenter, they - nevertheless - ask the "expert" the "easy questions"...because the show isn't for them, so to speak, it's for the audience...the presenter's role is as a "conduit" for the viewers and the "expert"...even if they know the answer, they ask the question anyway because they ask for the audience - who doesn't know - not for themselves...

Obviously, this isn't a TV show...this isn't an interview...I'm not a TV presenter...and so forth...the above is merely an "analogy", not a direct comparison...but the essential concept of saying the odd thing here and there "for the wider audience" is something I do sometimes do...I might know it, you might know it...but I'll add in the "extra" or get the fuller answer, in order that all reading might know it too...

I know, this is unusual practice...it does confuse many people...but, as always, I repeat that I define "winning" compeltely differently: If the debate continues and progresses and introduces new interesting topics, this is "winning" for me...if everyone feels engaged and contributes their opinion to the thread, that's another kind of "winning" for me...

Perhaps you didn't believe me saying this before...but, genuinely, it's true...which is why you see some things added to my posts which is about "making it clear to the wider audience" - so that all are able to "follow along" and, if they like, feel welcome to contribute their opinions to the discussion at any point - and I remain mindful of that "audience"...even when talking directly to you here...

One thing about an "arena" (as in "verbal arena", which we determined earlier USENET to essentially be): It's NOT a "private" place at all...it's very much a "public" place, where all can hear and see what's going on...and, note, that this is somewhat the point of an "arena": If you wanted "private" then private Email exists for that purpose...

If you are going to stand up in the arena and speak, then you do need to be mindful that you are PUBLIC SPEAKING as you do so...at least, this is how I see it and how I operate...and, as such, I might be addressing you but I still keep the conversation comprehensible to others listening in...as I say, imagine that "arena"...you're standing up and shouting across it to me on the other side (but this is the purpose of the arena - to conduct "debates" - so this isn't unusual)...now, re-consider your method of doing so, in light of that little mental image...

This is PUBLIC SPEAKING and I like to adopt the correct "public speaking" kind of methodologies...also, I try to keep it from getting too "parochial", so to speak, of the little conversation in the corner between a few people (well, one or two threads - directly addressed to people - are supposed to be like that but not generally is this the case)...I try to keep it "Plain English" (ironically, when I didn't - using the term "natural language" - that's exactly when all hell broke loose...unintentional but makes a good demonstration of my points there)...

Also, this concept might be somewhat "radical" for you...but I also post sometimes in AGREEMENT with others...not to attack or to criticise but to simply throw in my extra two cents here and there on the subject...to take one of your points and "extend" it because that's a topic of interest to me...and so forth...

So, I could simply be posting in response to "extend" the conversation, not just to "criticise"...indeed, consider your own motivations, I would say, if all you can see as a legitimate reason to post in response to someone is to only point out mistakes and criticise...

Again, the essential problem (which is only on your side of things, by the way...I'm fully expecting what I see coming and it's "par for the course" in my mind) here is that what you seem to think this "verbal arena" is and what it's for is entirely different to how I see it...you seem to think a "public arena" is a place to conduct private conversations...I don't...you seem to think that the only reason to post is to criticise and attack others, rather than conduct a public discussion debate...I don't...

...and so forth...but the real difficulty is that you all seem to believe this is about "winning"...I don't...or, at least, I do...but my definition of what consbreastutes a "win" in this context is different: Everyone being able to follow along and feeling welcome to contribute their opinion (which "furthers the discussion and debate") is a "win", in my book...disagreement is not a problem, so long as there's progress made on that disagreement...that's another "win"...

Being flawlessly perfect in everything I ever write (and, in trying to attain that, it's perfectly true that if you write nothing then you can't ever be wrong...and, in proportion: If you write little then you can only be a little wrong...so, my writing loads and loads of text offends this "flawless winning" atbreastude something awful: I dare to be "majorly wrong" and put it all out there in the open...geez Louise, no wonder you don't like me doing it...to your sense of "must win" insecurity, this is a vulgar, garish, fool-hardy action! I must be insane to write so much and risk exposing so many "flaws"...people might not think me "flawlessly perfect" and bow to my altar of "infallible perfectness"!! Sorry, but, you see, I fly totally in the face of that because this is NOT how I interpret this situation at all...I screw up here and there...big fracking deal...who doesn't? What's important is that, overall, I've got the right methodology...with the right methodology, the "right answers" eventually follow...not least because I know you'd all be kind enough to point out my every minor, trivial error and mistake without hesitation...if your methodology is unsound, then your "right answers" are pretty useless...it's just a "fluke" that it's right...next time, there's no guarantee it'll be anywhere near "right"...it's all "roll of the dice" stuff...on the other hand, if the methodology is sound, then the odd "wrong answer" appears but it is eventually "ironed out"...it is corrected...things progress...things get better...and, so, I see "win" as meaning that this "progress" continues...the actual form of that progress is often not particularly important, so long as it happens...just like the scientific methodology, there are no "wrong answers", so to speak...if a result shows you you're wrong, then that's just as valuable (perhaps, sometimes, MORE valuable) than a correct result...either way, you're gaining knowledge...and, eventually, that knowledge will conspire to "the right answer"...the preservation of that methodology in general is a hundredfold more important than, in one particular instance, "being right"...

Speaking of language, one "issue" is that English takes the whole thing too personally (and, as a consequence, people who think in English often follow the "pattern" the language lays down in their atbreastude)...

In English, you ARE right...it's very personal...

In German, to provide the constrast, "du hast recht"...you HAVE "right"...it is in your possession (currently) but no mention of whether this makes you, as a person, a "right person"...

This atbreastude of the language often leaks through to its speakers...it's a "personal attack" to be told that you are not in possession of the right answer...why, it's not that you do not possess the right answer, it's that you ARE (very personally) "wrong"...

English is my native first language but it's not my only one...as such, I take the "in possession" atbreastude to the truth...as Gandhi put it: "hate the sin, Love the sinner"...if you say the wrong thing, then that's not YOU...that's just what you've said...you are (temporarily) not in POSSESSION of the right answer...but, like any other piece of property, this can be rectified...you can put down the "wrong property" and pick up the "right property"...there...no "big deal" involved...

And this atbreastude is, indeed, the truth regards what is really going on...

So, understand, you may see this on a quite "personal" level...that "you ARE right", rather than "you HAVE right"...and, in American culture, there's a lot of emphasis on "winning" and not being a "loser"...and so forth...but the way I see "win" is completely different to you, it appears...

To me, if there's - for example - a great feast on my plate but there's millions of people dying of starvation elsewhere...well, sorry, I just don't see how that, in any regard, can be considered a "win"...in fact, let's get objective and mathematical: If for me to live, someone else dies, then that CANCELS OUT...it's a "draw", not a "win"...if, as is closer to the true case, hundreds or thousands die elsewhere for one to live in vulgar "excess" (which they literally do not need: They are, in fact, getting obese and sending themselves to an early grave from a heart attack...it's hardly a "good" situation for the fat person engaged in the "excess"...indeed, it'll zap their strength...the "fat" will generally lead to "lazy"...and it's a "downward spiral" for the person living in "excess" just as much...in short: This helps NO-ONE)...that's some serious "losing" going on...it's vilely wrong...no-one is "winning" from that position at all: The starving die but, ironically, so do the fat stuffing their faces to excess, as their arteries clog up and send them to an unnatural early grave just the same)...

The wrong language breeds the wrong atbreastudes, which breeds the wrong actions...you are NOT "right"...you can never BE "right"...but you can POSSESS right...think of it as "property" (shouldn't be difficult for a Westerner to think that way, as every single thing else is "property" ;)...and then when people offer their opinions, they are "selling" you their "products"...

So, do you see how this different atbreastude works? I want to hear everyone's opinions - good or ill - because I'm "shopping around"...just like with real "products" out there, there isn't really a "right" product and a "wrong" product...you have to buy the thing that suits the situation at the time...a newer better product can show up at any moment (bloody "upgrade cycles", eh? ;)...

You can HAVE "right"...but this does not mean you are "right"...this is an abberation of the English language...an error in it...don't take it too darn literalistically and personally...

Beth :)