Happy Birthday America

In article , "LockheartXP" wrote:
I like America, I love the american way. But they gotta stop acting like
they wanna control the whole world !!! I'm still waiting to hear from those
weapons of mass destruction btw.....
They should start respecting others too.


We would if your ****ing countries would quit asking for handouts.

In article , "Andy Cunningham" wrote:
Neither of those were invented by the USA. Though french fries were.

"neopolaris" . wrote in message ...

There probably wouldn't even be an internet or computers if it weren't for
the United States. There probably wouldn't be a helluva lotta things.

There is no one inventor of the Internet. The Internet was created in the
1960s as a huge network linking big university and government computers. The
science behind the Internet was invented during the Cold War, when the United
States was in competition against Russia for weapons and technology. So the
Internet is actually pretty old--around forty years. In fact, email has been
around since 1972! But it wasn't until 1989 that Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist
at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Geneva, proposed the World
Wide Web.
http://www.yahooligans.com/content/a.../20000921.html
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
If you dislike 'US" tough. We are making the world a better place-one
sandbox and rice paddy at a time.

PS: Yo fatass KAI. I have a temper too. Goes well with my formal Army
training. In short, shut your piehole.

neopolaris
ex-grunt
E-3-1

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.

I obviously have a better understanding of how the US government works than
you think

My comments were directed not as to why didn't Clinton do it but as to the
real reason behind why Bush did it in the manner he did. Your rational
appears to be deeply defensive of what has actually transpired.

Your comments ooze with contorted US style media properganda. Albeit there
is some truth in these comment however it does not hide the fact that the US
government has always placed its own interests at heart in terms of US
foreign policy, from Iraq to Kyoto there have always been alterior motives.
Denial of this in anyway is without doubt testimoiny to the mind bending
capabilities of the US media.

David appart form the sarcastic remarks what country/State do you live in?


"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
luinzi wrote:
These comments seem to be the product of someone who has been deeply
influenced by the US media and US cultural imperialism???

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.

Where are you from David?

Originally? My mother's womb, but I've moved around since then.


"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

neopolaris wrote:

"chrismm" wrote in message
. com...

snip

countries are trying to reduce pollution you refuse to sign any

agreement

to


reduce that pollution.


We had very good reasons for NOT signing that and most were proud that

GW

stuck to his guns. We were being bullied for no good reason. Any

country

in that situation would've done the same with a newly elected leader.
I
didn't give us a license to pollute more...sheeese.


All Bush did was tell 'em the unvarnished truth: that the treaty, as
written, didn't have a rat's chance in hell of ever passing the Senate,
and never did. But they'd rather 'feel good' with someone like Clinton
blowing smoke up their arses than hear the truth of it.

(GMAN) wrote:


We would if your ****ing countries would quit asking for handouts.
Just because someone asks, doesn't mean these idiots in Wash. have to
give.

Every time Powell or Bush sneezes - it costs us another billion or 2.

-=t=-

luinzi wrote:
That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.


I obviously have a better understanding of how the US government works than
you think

Since you haven't expressed one single tidbit of what you think you know
about it there isn't anything obvious at all except for your command of
clichés.


My comments were directed not as to why didn't Clinton do it but as to the
real reason behind why Bush did it in the manner he did.

Your comment wasn't directed at anything with respect to the topic but
was simply a pre programmed "U.S. style media" pull string doll response
and even here in your 'explanation' there is no meaning as you use
nothing but 'it' and 'the manner' without any substance as to what you
perceive 'it' and 'the manner' to be. Not to mention that if my original
message weren't still pasted in down there no one would even be able to
tell by your comments what the topic IS.

Your rational
appears to be deeply defensive of what has actually transpired.

What 'rationale'? That "it wouldn't pass" is why Clinton didn't submit
it to the Senate?

I have no idea what makes you think there's anything 'defensive' in my
stating the obvious.

Your comments ooze with contorted US style media properganda.

Second pull string response. Care to define what "U.S. style media" is?
Hint: it's a trick question as no one who watches it, reads it, listens
to it, produces, distributes, analyzes, or participates in it can seem
to agree. And even if, by some miracle, you managed the impossible you
would still have no idea what portion of it any particular individual
was regularly exposed to, nor what other sources they use, or what, if
any, of it they believed.

Albeit there
is some truth in these comment

You speak but say nothing. How about making some actually meaningful
statement of what you think is 'truth' and what you think is different
with respect to the topic?

however it does not hide the fact that the US
government has always placed its own interests at heart in terms of US
foreign policy,

News flash: all countries do; and they'd be fools to do things *against*
their "own interests." The trick comes in how countries interpret their
"own interests." Like if it's acquisition of territory by armed invasion
or in promulgating democracy, mutual security, free trade, etc.

from Iraq to Kyoto there have always been alterior motives.

Yes, Saddam and the Kyoto participants had ulterior motives.

Denial of this in anyway is without doubt testimoiny to the mind bending
capabilities of the US media.

I don't suppose it's ever dawned on you that someone can have an opinion
different than yours without it necessarily being due to "the U.S.
media." Good forbid anyone suggest it might even be correct.

I'm curious; Just how did whatever you use convince you of it's
omniscient infallibility?

David appart form the sarcastic remarks what country/State do you live in?

I rather thought it was humorous but, no matter. I responded that way
because it's irrelevant as you are attempting to employ the poison well
logic fallacy to avoid dealing with the substance of the topic itself.

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

luinzi wrote:

These comments seem to be the product of someone who has been deeply
influenced by the US media and US cultural imperialism???

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.


Where are you from David?

Originally? My mother's womb, but I've moved around since then.



"David Maynard" wrote in message
...


neopolaris wrote:


"chrismm" wrote in message
x.com...

snip

countries are trying to reduce pollution you refuse to sign any

agreement


to



reduce that pollution.


We had very good reasons for NOT signing that and most were proud that

GW


stuck to his guns. We were being bullied for no good reason. Any

country


in that situation would've done the same with a newly elected leader.

I

didn't give us a license to pollute more...sheeese.


All Bush did was tell 'em the unvarnished truth: that the treaty, as
written, didn't have a rat's chance in hell of ever passing the Senate,
and never did. But they'd rather 'feel good' with someone like Clinton
blowing smoke up their arses than hear the truth of it.

The computer as we know it was really invented during WWII in
England, primarilly under the direction of Alan Turing.
This means all-electronic, no moving parts, with the type of
architecture (von Neumann) most computers now use (buss-based).
However, some years before, a fellow in Germany (don't recall the
name) built some incomplete prototypes of his design for a machine
fitting our definition of a computer using electro-mechanical
relays used in telephone exchanges of the day. His design is
said to have been practical and would have worked.

Both of these derived from the work of all sorts of pioneers,
including England's Charles Babbage (the Difference Engine, a mech-
anical calculator, which had input, output, registers [fits a def-
inition of memory] and processing - again, a working model was
built but his full design never was), Frank(?) Boole (Irish
mathematician who came up with binary numbers and mathematics,
also logic gates and binary maths, hence 'Boolean' numbers & theory),
Ada what's-her-name after whom Ada the programming language as used
by US. DoD (credited with writing the first program for a pro-
grammable machine, early 19th century[?]), whoever that guy was in
the British industrial revolution late 18th cen. who came up with
the punched-card reader and applied it to operate "programmable"
weaving looms, giving us punched cards for many years, and
others. Primarilly, it was the Brits in the WWII though. If you
read a book called "Ultra Goes to War", a fair bit is printed about
the developement of Turing's machine, which was used for breaking
German radio cyphers (Ultra was the codename for this intelligence,
and it focused on breaking the output of the Enigma cypher machine).
The Germans towards the end of the war were developing a system
called Geheimschreiber (sp?) which was basically a radio-transmitted
digital encoding of machine cyphers like Enigma... very much like
modern digital communications. At the time the book came out, the
British hadn't yet declassified the decrypts relating to this de-
vice, however the Turing machine was definitely the basis for a
digital computer built to receive and decipher these transmissions.
(I guess that work was still too close to current technology in
decoding digital transmissions. THe book is full of other decrypts,
eventually declassified in the 1970's).

It and its descendants were the first true electronic digital
computers. Parallel work occurred in the USA at the time, but
drew most of its technical foundation from Bletchley Park (where
the Ultra org. and Turing were based). Turing's machine (I forget
it's name... not one of the Robinsons, something else) was built
at the Dollis Hill Telephone Works. There's an interesting section
about it in this book, which was published in the late 70's. Some
film I've seen about it shows the "Wrens" preparing punched cards
and paper tape (you computer old-timers will remember that), and
the machines actually were pretty quick for the first of the kind.
The tape streamed through fast enough to set up a big standing wave,
and was processed at something like 5000 characters per second.

It was US industry that turned computer technology into a commer-
cial enterprise, certainly. ARPAnet, which is the pre-internet
network mentioned this thread, was designed as a network which
could withstand large sections of itself being suddenly destroyed
in a nuclear war. You mention Berhners-Lee, Vint Cert is (I think)
the man who came up with the TCP/IP protocol, which is now some
decades old itself. (ARPA = Advanced Research Projects Admin.)

--
To reply remove spamblock and replace with iinet
"GMAN" wrote in message
...
In article , "Andy Cunningham"
wrote:
Neither of those were invented by the USA. Though french fries were.

"neopolaris" . wrote in message
...

There probably wouldn't even be an internet or computers if it weren't
for
the United States. There probably wouldn't be a helluva lotta things.

There is no one inventor of the Internet. The Internet was created in the
1960s as a huge network linking big university and government computers.
The
science behind the Internet was invented during the Cold War, when the
United
States was in competition against Russia for weapons and technology. So
the
Internet is actually pretty old--around forty years. In fact, email has
been
around since 1972! But it wasn't until 1989 that Tim Berners-Lee, a
scientist
at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Geneva, proposed the
World
Wide Web.

enough of your noise now, ~PLONK~
thanks
"noise" wrote in message
. au...
The computer as we know it was really invented during WWII in
England, primarilly under the direction of Alan Turing.
This means all-electronic, no moving parts, with the type of
architecture (von Neumann) most computers now use (buss-based).
However, some years before, a fellow in Germany (don't recall the
name) built some incomplete prototypes of his design for a machine
fitting our definition of a computer using electro-mechanical
relays used in telephone exchanges of the day. His design is
said to have been practical and would have worked.

Both of these derived from the work of all sorts of pioneers,
including England's Charles Babbage (the Difference Engine, a mech-
anical calculator, which had input, output, registers [fits a def-
inition of memory] and processing - again, a working model was
built but his full design never was), Frank(?) Boole (Irish
mathematician who came up with binary numbers and mathematics,
also logic gates and binary maths, hence 'Boolean' numbers & theory),
Ada what's-her-name after whom Ada the programming language as used
by US. DoD (credited with writing the first program for a pro-
grammable machine, early 19th century[?]), whoever that guy was in
the British industrial revolution late 18th cen. who came up with
the punched-card reader and applied it to operate "programmable"
weaving looms, giving us punched cards for many years, and
others. Primarilly, it was the Brits in the WWII though. If you
read a book called "Ultra Goes to War", a fair bit is printed about
the developement of Turing's machine, which was used for breaking
German radio cyphers (Ultra was the codename for this intelligence,
and it focused on breaking the output of the Enigma cypher machine).
The Germans towards the end of the war were developing a system
called Geheimschreiber (sp?) which was basically a radio-transmitted
digital encoding of machine cyphers like Enigma... very much like
modern digital communications. At the time the book came out, the
British hadn't yet declassified the decrypts relating to this de-
vice, however the Turing machine was definitely the basis for a
digital computer built to receive and decipher these transmissions.
(I guess that work was still too close to current technology in
decoding digital transmissions. THe book is full of other decrypts,
eventually declassified in the 1970's).

It and its descendants were the first true electronic digital
computers. Parallel work occurred in the USA at the time, but
drew most of its technical foundation from Bletchley Park (where
the Ultra org. and Turing were based). Turing's machine (I forget
it's name... not one of the Robinsons, something else) was built
at the Dollis Hill Telephone Works. There's an interesting section
about it in this book, which was published in the late 70's. Some
film I've seen about it shows the "Wrens" preparing punched cards
and paper tape (you computer old-timers will remember that), and
the machines actually were pretty quick for the first of the kind.
The tape streamed through fast enough to set up a big standing wave,
and was processed at something like 5000 characters per second.

It was US industry that turned computer technology into a commer-
cial enterprise, certainly. ARPAnet, which is the pre-internet
network mentioned this thread, was designed as a network which
could withstand large sections of itself being suddenly destroyed
in a nuclear war. You mention Berhners-Lee, Vint Cert is (I think)
the man who came up with the TCP/IP protocol, which is now some
decades old itself. (ARPA = Advanced Research Projects Admin.)

--
To reply remove spamblock and replace with iinet
"GMAN" wrote in message
...
In article , "Andy Cunningham"
wrote:
Neither of those were invented by the USA. Though french fries were.

"neopolaris" . wrote in message
...

There probably wouldn't even be an internet or computers if it
weren't
for
the United States. There probably wouldn't be a helluva lotta
things.

There is no one inventor of the Internet. The Internet was created in
the
1960s as a huge network linking big university and government computers.
The
science behind the Internet was invented during the Cold War, when the
United
States was in competition against Russia for weapons and technology. So
the
Internet is actually pretty old--around forty years. In fact, email has
been
around since 1972! But it wasn't until 1989 that Tim Berners-Lee, a
scientist
at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Geneva, proposed the
World
Wide Web.

Well looks like I'm on the defensive - just like anyone else that dare
criticise anything about the US

I'm curious; Just how did whatever you use convince you of it's
omniscient infallibility?

an MA in cultural and Media studies specialising in 'American Cultural
Imperialism since the 1960's'. - Hence my so called 'pre programmed
response' as you put it. But the infalibility of my argument was backed up
by your comment stating that "all countries do; and they'd be fools to do
things *against* their "own interests." ", as I was making reference to
American Foreign Policy hgaving alterior motives.

I don't suppose it's ever dawned on you that someone can have an
opinion
different than yours without it necessarily being due to "the U.S.
media." Good forbid anyone suggest it might even be correct.

My previous post openly admitted that 'Albeit there is some truth in these
comments' insinuating that I partly agreed with what is said in the media. I
feel you impulsively responded with that comment.

News flash: all countries do; and they'd be fools to do things
*against*
their "own interests." The trick comes in how countries interpret
their
"own interests." Like if it's acquisition of territory by armed
invasion
or in promulgating democracy, mutual security, free trade, etc.

Not always. The British Prime Minister Mr Blair has marred his name amongst
his own people by supporting the US against Saddam Hussein and has
consequently isolated Britain from its EU counterparts. It was always
acknowledged that Britain would never see any significant gain (politically,
ecomically, socially, or in terms of security) from the Iraqi invasion.
Gerheart Schroder and Jacques Chirac have put a huge strain on the EU
exports to the US by not backing war on Iraq. I think there is a more long
term altruistic reasons for such actions by world leaders rather than
propergating their own interests.

Second pull string response. Care to define what "U.S. style media"
is?
Hint: it's a trick question as no one who watches it, reads it,
listens
to it, produces, distributes, analyzes, or participates in it can seem
to agree. And even if, by some miracle, you managed the impossible you
would still have no idea what portion of it any particular individual
was regularly exposed to, nor what other sources they use, or what, if
any, of it they believed.

Pull string response?? Are you insinuating I'm a puppet??? I certainly do
care to define what I meant by US style media - there is a big descrepency
in MBC, CNN and deep southern state redneck radio stations to say Al
Jazeera, TF1, Euronews and the BBC in terms of their standpoint.

You're easily provocated into attacking others points of view the same way
any aggressor would who attempts top impose his perogative on others.....
does this sound familiar??

Sadly it appears that we are loosing the focus of this debate and we have
entered the realms of merely attacking each other's posts. I have nothing
further to state on this matter but feel free to post more
..................... but ............ I won't respond.

seeya...

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
luinzi wrote:
That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.


I obviously have a better understanding of how the US government works
than
you think

Since you haven't expressed one single tidbit of what you think you know
about it there isn't anything obvious at all except for your command of
clichés.


My comments were directed not as to why didn't Clinton do it but as to
the
real reason behind why Bush did it in the manner he did.

Your comment wasn't directed at anything with respect to the topic but
was simply a pre programmed "U.S. style media" pull string doll response
and even here in your 'explanation' there is no meaning as you use
nothing but 'it' and 'the manner' without any substance as to what you
perceive 'it' and 'the manner' to be. Not to mention that if my original
message weren't still pasted in down there no one would even be able to
tell by your comments what the topic IS.

Your rational
appears to be deeply defensive of what has actually transpired.

What 'rationale'? That "it wouldn't pass" is why Clinton didn't submit
it to the Senate?

I have no idea what makes you think there's anything 'defensive' in my
stating the obvious.

Your comments ooze with contorted US style media properganda.

Second pull string response. Care to define what "U.S. style media" is?
Hint: it's a trick question as no one who watches it, reads it, listens
to it, produces, distributes, analyzes, or participates in it can seem
to agree. And even if, by some miracle, you managed the impossible you
would still have no idea what portion of it any particular individual
was regularly exposed to, nor what other sources they use, or what, if
any, of it they believed.

Albeit there
is some truth in these comment

You speak but say nothing. How about making some actually meaningful
statement of what you think is 'truth' and what you think is different
with respect to the topic?

however it does not hide the fact that the US
government has always placed its own interests at heart in terms of US
foreign policy,

News flash: all countries do; and they'd be fools to do things *against*
their "own interests." The trick comes in how countries interpret their
"own interests." Like if it's acquisition of territory by armed invasion
or in promulgating democracy, mutual security, free trade, etc.

from Iraq to Kyoto there have always been alterior motives.

Yes, Saddam and the Kyoto participants had ulterior motives.

Denial of this in anyway is without doubt testimoiny to the mind bending
capabilities of the US media.

I don't suppose it's ever dawned on you that someone can have an opinion
different than yours without it necessarily being due to "the U.S.
media." Good forbid anyone suggest it might even be correct.

I'm curious; Just how did whatever you use convince you of it's
omniscient infallibility?

David appart form the sarcastic remarks what country/State do you live
in?

I rather thought it was humorous but, no matter. I responded that way
because it's irrelevant as you are attempting to employ the poison well
logic fallacy to avoid dealing with the substance of the topic itself.

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

luinzi wrote:

These comments seem to be the product of someone who has been deeply
influenced by the US media and US cultural imperialism???

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.


Where are you from David?

Originally? My mother's womb, but I've moved around since then.



"David Maynard" wrote in message
...


neopolaris wrote:


"chrismm" wrote in message
x.com...

snip

countries are trying to reduce pollution you refuse to sign any

agreement


to



reduce that pollution.


We had very good reasons for NOT signing that and most were proud
that

GW


stuck to his guns. We were being bullied for no good reason. Any

country


in that situation would've done the same with a newly elected leader.

I

didn't give us a license to pollute more...sheeese.


All Bush did was tell 'em the unvarnished truth: that the treaty, as
written, didn't have a rat's chance in hell of ever passing the
Senate,
and never did. But they'd rather 'feel good' with someone like Clinton
blowing smoke up their arses than hear the truth of it.

luinzi wrote:
Well looks like I'm on the defensive - just like anyone else that dare
criticise anything about the US

In the first place, you didn't make a 'criticism'; you tossed out a generic,
unexplained and unsupported, 'epithet' of some sort and have yet to explain what
it had to do with the point I had made.

But, that's an interesting 'complaint'. You seem to think the U.S. is some kind
of epithet pin cushion you can stick insult needles in whenever the fancy
strikes you and that it's 'unfair' anyone even so much as question it.

I'm curious; Just how did whatever you use convince you of it's
omniscient infallibility?

an MA in cultural and Media studies specialising in 'American Cultural
Imperialism since the 1960's'. - Hence my so called 'pre programmed
response' as you put it.

Well, yes. I'd say 'specializing' in it does a good job of programming although
I'm not sure why one would want to academically 'specialize' in an opinionated
conclusion.

But the infalibility of my argument was backed up
by your comment stating that "all countries do; and they'd be fools to do
things *against* their "own interests." ", as I was making reference to
American Foreign Policy hgaving alterior motives.

My comment about country's motives had nothing to do with media 'imperialism'.
Rather it derives from human psychology as countries, almost without exception,
are populated and run by humans.

Nice try at twisting my comment but I specifically made it at the point where
you stated the "US government has always placed its own interests at heart" and
NOT where you leveled the claim of "alterior" motives as the two are NOT the
same; which I explained in "The trick comes in how countries interpret their
'own interests'."


I don't suppose it's ever dawned on you that someone can have an
opinion
different than yours without it necessarily being due to "the U.S.
media." Good forbid anyone suggest it might even be correct.

My previous post openly admitted that 'Albeit there is some truth in these
comments' insinuating that I partly agreed with what is said in the media. I
feel you impulsively responded with that comment.

Your 'admission' is of no value because you refuse to say anything specific. You
don't say what you think is true, different, or anything else. Not to mention
that your 'admission' was in response to my comments, not the media. And I
haven't MADE any media comments as you have never provided anything to discuss
regarding it other than some generic unspecified accusation, I presume, of
'imperialism'. My effort has been in trying to get you to explain what you mean
and why.

News flash: all countries do; and they'd be fools to do things
*against*
their "own interests." The trick comes in how countries interpret
their
"own interests." Like if it's acquisition of territory by armed
invasion
or in promulgating democracy, mutual security, free trade, etc.

Not always. The British Prime Minister Mr Blair has marred his name amongst
his own people by supporting the US against Saddam Hussein and has
consequently isolated Britain from its EU counterparts. It was always
acknowledged that Britain would never see any significant gain (politically,
ecomically, socially, or in terms of security) from the Iraqi invasion.

Acknowledged by WHO? I'd lay money on the table that Blair doesn't agree.

You can't assign YOUR 'opinion' to Blair and then claim that's HIS 'motive'.

Gerheart Schroder and Jacques Chirac have put a huge strain on the EU
exports to the US by not backing war on Iraq.

Besides that being a simplistic and limited observation, ignoring a host of
possible motives other than simply what effect something has on E.U. exports,
end results do not prove motives. I.E. Humans are fallible and things do not
always turn out as intended. Some people might suggest it rarely does.

I think there is a more long
term altruistic reasons for such actions by world leaders rather than
propergating their own interests.

You obviously mean "world leaders" except, of course, for U.S. leaders as you've
claimed "there have always been alterior motives."

Must be something in the water, eh?

I suggest you're as ego centric about 'your' leaders as you claim folks in the
U.S. are; quite willing to assign 'altruistic' motives to 'yours' while
asserting that the U.S. is always 'bad'.

Btw, 'altruism', at least in the manner the term is often used, and
"self-interest" are not mutually exclusive. Some wield 'altruism' as a badge of
'moral superiority' over others, a "self-interest." Others simply 'feel good' by
doing 'good deeds', but it's in your "self-interest" to 'feel good' about
yourself, isn't it?

Second pull string response. Care to define what "U.S. style media"
is?
Hint: it's a trick question as no one who watches it, reads it,
listens
to it, produces, distributes, analyzes, or participates in it can seem
to agree. And even if, by some miracle, you managed the impossible you
would still have no idea what portion of it any particular individual
was regularly exposed to, nor what other sources they use, or what, if
any, of it they believed.

Pull string response?? Are you insinuating I'm a puppet???

No. Maybe you don't know what I mean by a pull string doll. They're an old type
of 'talking' doll that spits out a preprogrammed phrase when you pull the string
on the back (string, when pulled, winds spring motor that runs the internal
mechanism for one phrase): like "U.S. Media Imperialism. Of course, no matter
what you say, or how hard you try to get the doll to 'explain' anything, you
just get the same phrases over and over; like "U.S. Media Imperialism."

I certainly do
care to define what I meant by US style media - there is a big descrepency
in MBC, CNN and deep southern state redneck radio stations to say Al
Jazeera, TF1, Euronews and the BBC in terms of their standpoint.

Saying different media are different isn't a definition of anything.

Btw, if that characterization, up there, of the U.S. media is an accurate
representation of your understanding of it then you don't understand it.

You're easily provocated into attacking others points of view the same way
any aggressor would who attempts top impose his perogative on others.....
does this sound familiar??

How the heck could I have attacked your 'point of view' when you haven't
presented one? Other than some knee jerk comment that I must be the 'victim' of
"U.S. media imperialism" that you have YET to explain what you mean by it.


Sadly it appears that we are loosing the focus of this debate and we have
entered the realms of merely attacking each other's posts. I have nothing
further to state on this matter but feel free to post more
.................... but ............ I won't respond.

Maybe you could tell me what your 'focus' was because, other than tossing out an
as of yet unexplained 'U.S. media' epithet, I just don't see it and I can't seem
to get you to explain it.


seeya...

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

luinzi wrote:

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.


I obviously have a better understanding of how the US government works

than

you think

Since you haven't expressed one single tidbit of what you think you know
about it there isn't anything obvious at all except for your command of
clichés.


My comments were directed not as to why didn't Clinton do it but as to

the

real reason behind why Bush did it in the manner he did.

Your comment wasn't directed at anything with respect to the topic but
was simply a pre programmed "U.S. style media" pull string doll response
and even here in your 'explanation' there is no meaning as you use
nothing but 'it' and 'the manner' without any substance as to what you
perceive 'it' and 'the manner' to be. Not to mention that if my original
message weren't still pasted in down there no one would even be able to
tell by your comments what the topic IS.


Your rational
appears to be deeply defensive of what has actually transpired.

What 'rationale'? That "it wouldn't pass" is why Clinton didn't submit
it to the Senate?

I have no idea what makes you think there's anything 'defensive' in my
stating the obvious.


Your comments ooze with contorted US style media properganda.

Second pull string response. Care to define what "U.S. style media" is?
Hint: it's a trick question as no one who watches it, reads it, listens
to it, produces, distributes, analyzes, or participates in it can seem
to agree. And even if, by some miracle, you managed the impossible you
would still have no idea what portion of it any particular individual
was regularly exposed to, nor what other sources they use, or what, if
any, of it they believed.


Albeit there
is some truth in these comment

You speak but say nothing. How about making some actually meaningful
statement of what you think is 'truth' and what you think is different
with respect to the topic?


however it does not hide the fact that the US
government has always placed its own interests at heart in terms of US
foreign policy,

News flash: all countries do; and they'd be fools to do things *against*
their "own interests." The trick comes in how countries interpret their
"own interests." Like if it's acquisition of territory by armed invasion
or in promulgating democracy, mutual security, free trade, etc.


from Iraq to Kyoto there have always been alterior motives.

Yes, Saddam and the Kyoto participants had ulterior motives.


Denial of this in anyway is without doubt testimoiny to the mind bending
capabilities of the US media.

I don't suppose it's ever dawned on you that someone can have an opinion
different than yours without it necessarily being due to "the U.S.
media." Good forbid anyone suggest it might even be correct.

I'm curious; Just how did whatever you use convince you of it's
omniscient infallibility?


David appart form the sarcastic remarks what country/State do you live

in?

I rather thought it was humorous but, no matter. I responded that way
because it's irrelevant as you are attempting to employ the poison well
logic fallacy to avoid dealing with the substance of the topic itself.


"David Maynard" wrote in message
...


luinzi wrote:


These comments seem to be the product of someone who has been deeply
influenced by the US media and US cultural imperialism???

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.



Where are you from David?

Originally? My mother's womb, but I've moved around since then.




"David Maynard" wrote in message
...



neopolaris wrote:



"chrismm" wrote in message
pex.com...

snip

countries are trying to reduce pollution you refuse to sign any

agreement



to




reduce that pollution.


We had very good reasons for NOT signing that and most were proud

that

GW



stuck to his guns. We were being bullied for no good reason. Any

country



in that situation would've done the same with a newly elected leader.

I


didn't give us a license to pollute more...sheeese.


All Bush did was tell 'em the unvarnished truth: that the treaty, as
written, didn't have a rat's chance in hell of ever passing the

Senate,

and never did. But they'd rather 'feel good' with someone like Clinton
blowing smoke up their arses than hear the truth of it.

oh....... come on luinzi retort!!!!

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
luinzi wrote:
Well looks like I'm on the defensive - just like anyone else that dare
criticise anything about the US

In the first place, you didn't make a 'criticism'; you tossed out a
generic,
unexplained and unsupported, 'epithet' of some sort and have yet to
explain what
it had to do with the point I had made.

But, that's an interesting 'complaint'. You seem to think the U.S. is some
kind
of epithet pin cushion you can stick insult needles in whenever the fancy
strikes you and that it's 'unfair' anyone even so much as question it.

I'm curious; Just how did whatever you use convince you of it's
omniscient infallibility?

an MA in cultural and Media studies specialising in 'American Cultural
Imperialism since the 1960's'. - Hence my so called 'pre programmed
response' as you put it.

Well, yes. I'd say 'specializing' in it does a good job of programming
although
I'm not sure why one would want to academically 'specialize' in an
opinionated
conclusion.

But the infalibility of my argument was backed up
by your comment stating that "all countries do; and they'd be fools to
do
things *against* their "own interests." ", as I was making reference to
American Foreign Policy hgaving alterior motives.

My comment about country's motives had nothing to do with media
'imperialism'.
Rather it derives from human psychology as countries, almost without
exception,
are populated and run by humans.

Nice try at twisting my comment but I specifically made it at the point
where
you stated the "US government has always placed its own interests at
heart" and
NOT where you leveled the claim of "alterior" motives as the two are NOT
the
same; which I explained in "The trick comes in how countries interpret
their
'own interests'."


I don't suppose it's ever dawned on you that someone can have an
opinion
different than yours without it necessarily being due to "the U.S.
media." Good forbid anyone suggest it might even be correct.

My previous post openly admitted that 'Albeit there is some truth in
these
comments' insinuating that I partly agreed with what is said in the
media. I
feel you impulsively responded with that comment.

Your 'admission' is of no value because you refuse to say anything
specific. You
don't say what you think is true, different, or anything else. Not to
mention
that your 'admission' was in response to my comments, not the media. And I
haven't MADE any media comments as you have never provided anything to
discuss
regarding it other than some generic unspecified accusation, I presume, of
'imperialism'. My effort has been in trying to get you to explain what you
mean
and why.

News flash: all countries do; and they'd be fools to do things
*against*
their "own interests." The trick comes in how countries interpret
their
"own interests." Like if it's acquisition of territory by armed
invasion
or in promulgating democracy, mutual security, free trade, etc.

Not always. The British Prime Minister Mr Blair has marred his name
amongst
his own people by supporting the US against Saddam Hussein and has
consequently isolated Britain from its EU counterparts. It was always
acknowledged that Britain would never see any significant gain
(politically,
ecomically, socially, or in terms of security) from the Iraqi invasion.

Acknowledged by WHO? I'd lay money on the table that Blair doesn't agree.

You can't assign YOUR 'opinion' to Blair and then claim that's HIS
'motive'.

Gerheart Schroder and Jacques Chirac have put a huge strain on the EU
exports to the US by not backing war on Iraq.

Besides that being a simplistic and limited observation, ignoring a host
of
possible motives other than simply what effect something has on E.U.
exports,
end results do not prove motives. I.E. Humans are fallible and things do
not
always turn out as intended. Some people might suggest it rarely does.

I think there is a more long
term altruistic reasons for such actions by world leaders rather than
propergating their own interests.

You obviously mean "world leaders" except, of course, for U.S. leaders as
you've
claimed "there have always been alterior motives."

Must be something in the water, eh?

I suggest you're as ego centric about 'your' leaders as you claim folks in
the
U.S. are; quite willing to assign 'altruistic' motives to 'yours' while
asserting that the U.S. is always 'bad'.

Btw, 'altruism', at least in the manner the term is often used, and
"self-interest" are not mutually exclusive. Some wield 'altruism' as a
badge of
'moral superiority' over others, a "self-interest." Others simply 'feel
good' by
doing 'good deeds', but it's in your "self-interest" to 'feel good' about
yourself, isn't it?

Second pull string response. Care to define what "U.S. style
media"
is?
Hint: it's a trick question as no one who watches it, reads it,
listens
to it, produces, distributes, analyzes, or participates in it can
seem
to agree. And even if, by some miracle, you managed the impossible
you
would still have no idea what portion of it any particular
individual
was regularly exposed to, nor what other sources they use, or
what, if
any, of it they believed.

Pull string response?? Are you insinuating I'm a puppet???

No. Maybe you don't know what I mean by a pull string doll. They're an old
type
of 'talking' doll that spits out a preprogrammed phrase when you pull the
string
on the back (string, when pulled, winds spring motor that runs the
internal
mechanism for one phrase): like "U.S. Media Imperialism. Of course, no
matter
what you say, or how hard you try to get the doll to 'explain' anything,
you
just get the same phrases over and over; like "U.S. Media Imperialism."

I certainly do
care to define what I meant by US style media - there is a big
descrepency
in MBC, CNN and deep southern state redneck radio stations to say Al
Jazeera, TF1, Euronews and the BBC in terms of their standpoint.

Saying different media are different isn't a definition of anything.

Btw, if that characterization, up there, of the U.S. media is an accurate
representation of your understanding of it then you don't understand it.

You're easily provocated into attacking others points of view the same
way
any aggressor would who attempts top impose his perogative on
others.....
does this sound familiar??

How the heck could I have attacked your 'point of view' when you haven't
presented one? Other than some knee jerk comment that I must be the
'victim' of
"U.S. media imperialism" that you have YET to explain what you mean by
it.


Sadly it appears that we are loosing the focus of this debate and we
have
entered the realms of merely attacking each other's posts. I have
nothing
further to state on this matter but feel free to post more
.................... but ............ I won't respond.

Maybe you could tell me what your 'focus' was because, other than tossing
out an
as of yet unexplained 'U.S. media' epithet, I just don't see it and I
can't seem
to get you to explain it.


seeya...

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

luinzi wrote:

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.


I obviously have a better understanding of how the US government works

than

you think

Since you haven't expressed one single tidbit of what you think you know
about it there isn't anything obvious at all except for your command of
clichés.


My comments were directed not as to why didn't Clinton do it but as to

the

real reason behind why Bush did it in the manner he did.

Your comment wasn't directed at anything with respect to the topic but
was simply a pre programmed "U.S. style media" pull string doll response
and even here in your 'explanation' there is no meaning as you use
nothing but 'it' and 'the manner' without any substance as to what you
perceive 'it' and 'the manner' to be. Not to mention that if my original
message weren't still pasted in down there no one would even be able to
tell by your comments what the topic IS.


Your rational
appears to be deeply defensive of what has actually transpired.

What 'rationale'? That "it wouldn't pass" is why Clinton didn't submit
it to the Senate?

I have no idea what makes you think there's anything 'defensive' in my
stating the obvious.


Your comments ooze with contorted US style media properganda.

Second pull string response. Care to define what "U.S. style media" is?
Hint: it's a trick question as no one who watches it, reads it, listens
to it, produces, distributes, analyzes, or participates in it can seem
to agree. And even if, by some miracle, you managed the impossible you
would still have no idea what portion of it any particular individual
was regularly exposed to, nor what other sources they use, or what, if
any, of it they believed.


Albeit there
is some truth in these comment

You speak but say nothing. How about making some actually meaningful
statement of what you think is 'truth' and what you think is different
with respect to the topic?


however it does not hide the fact that the US
government has always placed its own interests at heart in terms of US
foreign policy,

News flash: all countries do; and they'd be fools to do things *against*
their "own interests." The trick comes in how countries interpret their
"own interests." Like if it's acquisition of territory by armed invasion
or in promulgating democracy, mutual security, free trade, etc.


from Iraq to Kyoto there have always been alterior motives.

Yes, Saddam and the Kyoto participants had ulterior motives.


Denial of this in anyway is without doubt testimoiny to the mind
bending
capabilities of the US media.

I don't suppose it's ever dawned on you that someone can have an opinion
different than yours without it necessarily being due to "the U.S.
media." Good forbid anyone suggest it might even be correct.

I'm curious; Just how did whatever you use convince you of it's
omniscient infallibility?


David appart form the sarcastic remarks what country/State do you live

in?

I rather thought it was humorous but, no matter. I responded that way
because it's irrelevant as you are attempting to employ the poison well
logic fallacy to avoid dealing with the substance of the topic itself.


"David Maynard" wrote in message
...


luinzi wrote:


These comments seem to be the product of someone who has been deeply
influenced by the US media and US cultural imperialism???

That comment sounds like it comes from someone who doesn't understand
how the U.S. government works nor Clinton's personality.

Short version. Treaties require Senate ratification. Clinton didn't
submit it because he knew it wouldn't pass. It sat here for years
because it wouldn't pass. Bush came along and told Europe that, uh, it
wasn't going to pass. Europe reels with shock and surprise.



Where are you from David?

Originally? My mother's womb, but I've moved around since then.




"David Maynard" wrote in message
...



neopolaris wrote:



"chrismm" wrote in message
pex.com...

snip

countries are trying to reduce pollution you refuse to sign any

agreement



to




reduce that pollution.


We had very good reasons for NOT signing that and most were proud

that

GW



stuck to his guns. We were being bullied for no good reason. Any

country



in that situation would've done the same with a newly elected
leader.

I


didn't give us a license to pollute more...sheeese.


All Bush did was tell 'em the unvarnished truth: that the treaty, as
written, didn't have a rat's chance in hell of ever passing the

Senate,

and never did. But they'd rather 'feel good' with someone like
Clinton
blowing smoke up their arses than hear the truth of it.