[lit-ideas] Re: deleting/culling messages
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:03:19 -0000
I thought I'd post (again) a multi-post (of mine) that shows why
they're
a) not necessary b) a bad idea.
In case it isn't obvious I'll add that they're really bad for i.
some disabled
people (scrolling down can be a problem) ii. people without
broadband
(ADSL) iii. people with some kind of mail quota.
Selective quotation is not a massive problem. Memory, well yes,
but
that's what threads are for, John.
post, JE:
LH>I have read several comments about the Dutch abandoning
various parts of the Netherlands LH>and moving to Australia and
New Zealand (I've only run across mention of one coming to LH>the
U.S.) because the Muslims have taken over. How many have
emigrated and the extent LH>to which Muslims have taken over in
the Netherlands isn't clear to me.
The figures on emigration and immigration are, Lawrence, on the
web.
LH>This subject often comes up when Hirsi Ali is discussed -- she
is one Dutch lady who did LH>emigrate to the United States.
Logical Fallacy of Hasty Generalization, Lawrence?
LH>Another point mentioned is that while the Muslim numbers are
not that overwhelming,
Austria, 4.1 %
Belgium, 4.0 %
Denmark, 5.0 %
France, 8/9.6 %
Germany, 3.6 %
Italy, 1.4 %
Netherlands, 5.8 %
Spain, 2.3 %
Sweden, 3.0%
Switzerland, 4.2%
UK, 2.8 %
LH>when you make adjustments for age and location, you find that
many
LH>cities have as much as a 40% representation, in regard to the
young,
LH>of young Muslim men.
Perhaps you could name 15 of the "many"?
------------Original Message------------
From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Mar-12-2007 2:49 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defense Welfare
"The joy of his book is that he is expressing what many of us who
think (not you Simon) have oft thought but ne'er so well
expressed."
Thank you Lawrence, you summed it up perfectly. Steyn is
producing a product designed to make money. For that to happen,
there has to be an adequate demand. In this instance, it doesn't
matter a jot if the product is pure fantasy because that's
exactly what the market requires.
So I asked you whether Steyn is a Prime Source. Not a primary
source since that typically refers to a first hand document used
by historians, but a prime source in the sense of a principal
source of information that you think is informative, objective
and factual. If you do think that Steyn is any of these things,
please say.
Thanks to Judy for including a snippet of Johan Hari's review and
astonishment directed towards Lawrence for rejecting Hari in
favour of his hero Steyn; one of them got a double first in
Social and Political Science from Kings College, Cambridge, the
other dropped out of school at sixteen. One of them became (in
2005) the youngest person to ever be nominated for the
prestigious Orwell Prize for political writing., was nominated
twice for the David Watt Prize, also for political writing, in
2003, was named 'Young Journalist of the Year' by the Press
Gazette awards, which are regarded as the Oscars of British
journalism, in 2000, was named Student Journalist of the Year by
the Times of London, has reported from the United States, the
Congo, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Venezuela, Rwanda, Syria and Peru
and has interviewed Tony Blair, Hugo Chavez, George Michael, the
Dalai Lama, Simon Peres, Martin McGuiness, Abu Hamza, Chuck
Palahniuk and others. The other was awarded the 2006 Eric
Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, recognising
the work of a columnist, editorialist or writer whose work
defends and expresses admiration of the United States and its
democratic institutions (clearly concerned with objectivity).
It's a difficult choice I know but, after a few hours thought, I
think I'm edging towards a choice of reading for the next decade.
Simon
PS. Just thought I'd add this bit, again not naming names:
Since he began work as a journalist, XXXXX has been attacked in
print by the Daily Telegraph, John Pilger, Peter Oborne, Private
Eye, the Socialist Worker, Cristina Odone, the Spectator, Andrew
Neil, Mark Steyn (damn, gave it away), the British National
Party, Medialens, al Muhajaroun and Richard Littlejohn. 'Prince'
Turki Al-Faisal, the Saudi Ambassador to Britain, has accused
Johann of "waging a private jihad against the House of Saud".
(He's right). Johann has been called "a Stalinist" and "beneath
contempt" by Noam Chomsky, 'Horrible Hari' by Niall Ferguson, "an
uppity little queer" by Bruce Anderson, 'a drug addict' by George
Galloway, "fat" by the Dalai Lama and "a cunt" by Busted.
PPS Anytime Lawrence wants to demonstrate, statistically, how
Europe will become a Muslim continent by 2050 I'll be glad to
comment. And no, I've no intention of buying Steyn's book,
Lawrence will have to provide the proof of his assertions.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defense Welfare
Simon:
All your twitty chatter about Steyn's education causes me wonder
about yours, Simon. I have no idea what you mean by "prime
source." Source of what? When I entered graduate school, the
obligatory first course was "Techniques of Literary Research."
One of the first things we learned was the difference between a
primary and a secondary sources.
I suspect you don't mean primary source, but what the heck do you
mean? Consider the Wikepedian definition of "primary source":
"The nature of a primary source depends on the historical problem
being studied. In political history, the most important primary
sources are likely to be documents such as official reports,
speeches, letters and diaries by participants, and eyewitness
accounts (as by a journalist who was there). In the history of
ideas or intellectual history, the dominant primary sources might
be books of philosophy or scientific literature. A study of
cultural history could include fictional sources such as novels
or plays. In a broader sense primary sources also include
physical objects like photographs, newsreels, coins, paintings or
buildings created at the time. Historians may also take
archaeological artifacts and oral reports and interviews into
consideration. Written sources may be divided into three main
types."
Narrative sources or literary sources tell a story or message.
They are not limited to fictional sources (which can be sources
of information for contemporary attitudes), but include diaries,
films, biographies, scientific works, and so on.
Diplomatic sources include charters and other legal documents
which usually follow a set format.
Social documents are records created by organizations, such as
registers of births, tax records, and so on.
In the study of historiography, when the study of history is
itself subject to historical scrutiny, a secondary source becomes
a primary source. For a biography of a historian, that
historian's publications would be primary sources. Documentary
films can be considered a secondary source or primary source,
depending on how much the filmmaker modifies the original
sources."
Someone could engage in a project and use Steyn as a "primary
source." Steyn is a journalist, after all, and has seen, heard,
and witnessed a number of things that he has written about, but
again, I don't think that's what you mean. But what the heck do
you mean, Simon?
Lawrence
ps: It hasn't escaped me that neither you nor Andreas has
directly responded to any of the issues that Steyn has raised,
All you can manage, apparently, is ad hominem attacks and
innuendo. The poorly educated Steyn, however, isn't afraid to
tackle issues. The joy of his book is that he is expressing what
many of us who think (not you Simon) have oft thought but ne'er
so well expressed.
------------Original Message------------
From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Mar-12-2007 9:27 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defense Welfare
"There's a line conservatives are fond of when they're discussing
welfare: what's batter [sic] for a man -- to give him a fish or
to teach him to fish for himself? That goes double for defense
welfare."
I'm sure this mst be an error in transcription, but it's good.
Very good.
As for Steyn, I rang him up and challenged him to a yorkshire
pudding making competition (a cook off). Though he whipped well,
his batter wasn't better, his fat wasn't hot enough and so his
puddings weren't crispy. Pointless really, but he talked well and
his supporters in the front row lapped it up. Even it if was
half-baked.
So Lawrence, for the second time, do you seriously consider Steyn
a prime source? Is he, for you, as important a commentator as say
Ann Coulter? Or will you come clean and admit you read him for
his comedy value?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: Lit-Ideas
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:18 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Defense Welfare
Andreas accused me of being a recipient of welfare because I
served in the Marine Corps and worked in America' Defense
Industry. There's no reason to belabor the nonsensical nature of
that view, but there is a sense in which Defense Welfare exists.
I am not the recipient of it, but our European allies are:
"As for America's 'friends, there's another paradox of the
non-imperial hyperpower: the United State garrisons not remote
ramshackle colonies but its wealthiest allies, thereby freeing
them to spend their tax revenues on luxuriant welfare programs
rather than on tanks and aircraft carriers and thus further
exacerbating the differences between America and the rest of the
free world. Like any other form of welfare, defense welfare is a
hard habit to break and damaging to the recipient. The
peculiarly obnoxious character of modern Europe is a logical
consequence of America's willingness to absolve it of
responsibility for its own security. In 1796 George Washington
wrote to Alexander Hamilton: 'The nation which indulges towards
another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some
degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its
affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from
its duty and its interest.'
"That neatly sums up the Euro-American relationship: the United
States has become a slave to its habitual if largely misplaced
fondness for Europe, while Europe has become a slave to its
habitual if entirely irrational hatred for America. There's a
line conservatives are fond of when they're discussing welfare:
what's batter for a man -- to give him a fish or to teach him to
fish for himself? That goes double for defense welfare."
[Steyn, p 159-60]
I don't know about that, Steyn. Do we really want to trust those
wackos with weapons again?
Lawrence
----- Original Message -----
From: <JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: deleting/culling messages
> Well done. I salute you.
>
> Julie Krueger
>
> ========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re:
deleting/culling
> messages Date: 3/13/2007 10:23:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From:
> _john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx)
To:
> _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Sent on:
> _JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxxx (mailto:JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx) wrote:
> One thing that I find somewhat troublesome about sending a
reply with the
> text to which I'm replying truncated is ...
>
> In my experience (daily) of e-mails which hit my in-box, so
many have very
> similar or even the same subject lines -- and then, when I read
the post, I
> have little if no clue, to what the person is responding. If
he/she tags along
> the message I sent along with their reply I have a notion of
what they're
> responding to.
>
>
>
> You miss the main reason for "judicious" editing of the
original in a reply:
> It lets you pick and choose exactly the words to which you
want to call
> attention in the previous message. You can make the person
look like a complete
> idiot by picking the single bad sentence in your reply, or you
can completely
> mis-represent their position by leaving intact a parenthetical
digression.
> And yet it seems that the words you use are not yours, but
theirs! Their OWN
> words make them look like fools. What power! What joy!
>
> This is MUCH more fun than letting the original poster take
YOUR precious
> space in YOUR message; why should you share your cyber space
with the person
> you're responding to? Let him get his/her own message space if
he/she wants to
> send another message!
>
> And if other people actually real ALL of the original message,
they might
> notice the flawless logic and sense of the original post
rather than agree with
> my chop job of the original.
>
> The cyber pen may be mightier than the cyber sword, but the
cyber ax is
> mightier than the cyber pen!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be
>
> explained by incompetence and ignorance."
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> John Wager _john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> (mailto:john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>
> Lisle, IL, USA
>
>
>
> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now
offers free
> email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
> http://www.aol.com.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
