NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/environm/14718

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 7.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
From: [e-mail] (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:16:38 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 153

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> > >Ah, now I get a line on how you view the world, Victor. If you care to
> > >go back and read my argument, do notice that it was in response to the
> > >idea that there is one single objective environment. I suggested quite
> > >simply that those who hold to such a view might take it with them to a
> > >wholly foreign environment to see how long they will survive there
> >
> > To claim that there is one objective environment is not to claim that
> > the environment is identical everywhere. So, if that is your point, it
> > is rather feeble.
>
[...]
>Here for your benefit, from my dictionary:
>
>   environment n act of surrounding; surroundings; external conditions
>                 in which a person or organism lives.
>
>Such definition *includes* all of one's own kin, society, cultural
>heritage, working conditions, work-mates, car, pet dog, adulterous
>wife, political activists, promoters of arithmetic, whatever, and all
>the complex of relationships and inherent obligations and rights
>contingent upon them.
>

In American English, the de-facto world standard, "environment",
"environmental science" and "environmentalism"
have a more specific meaning. That's why we are conversing  on
"sci.environment" although neither the scientific nor the environmental
content of this "conversation" is notable.

> > For someone who places such a stress on negotiating and compromise, you
> > seem to have a great deal of difficulty with opposing points of view.
>
>That it gets hot at times does not make it less negotiable. My problem
>is that you insist on forcing others into heated argument instead of
>showing a little common sense to start with. The task at hand is to
>bring it back down from where you have taken it, back to a cooler and
>more reasonable mode of discussion.

Perhaps if you were a little less quick to denounce people as fanatics
or to take the least sensible interpretation of their words, you would
find conversations here a little more informative.

> > Romanticization of the pre-european past is a standard delusion of
> > european colonizers worldwide. The "noble savages" were every bit as human,
> > and generally quite as viscious, stupid, and brutal as the european
> > invaders. While the original inhabitants of Australia, for example, were
> > far less destructive of the environment than their new neighbors, they
> > did not possess an exemption from human history.
>
>Please do tell me how this vastly oversimplistic comment of yours on
>the difference of opinion between Rouseau and Hobbes is relevant to
>the matter at hand?
>
>The fact remains that the Aboriginal people here never bothered to go
>into the production of weapons of mass destruction which underwrites
>your economy, nor indeed rained millions of tons of them down upon
>other nations when they failed to agree with you.
>
>A significant difference, I do suggest.
>
Nice of them. But the long established and flxbile methods of problem
solving, that you have offered as an alternative to the Horror of
American Fanaticism, did not afford any rights at all to women, for
example.

> > Well, it might be good to make an effort to find out "what goes on" here,
> > before you explain to us how ignorant and fanatical we are.
>
>We have had more than enough trouble with your people coming over here,
>upsetting the apple-cart. Too many British activists too, BTW, each of
>you along with the French inheriting the same traditions of protest
>and confrontation in the name of something you call "liberty".

So, experience with American tourists in Australia qualifies you to
make pronoucements about US environmental politics and such issues
as Alaskan land access without having to learn anything else?


>My current attitude is derived very much, plainly and obviously for
>all here to observe for themselves, from the extremely painful process
>of trying to engage you in substantial and informed debate befitting a
>world environmental forum. What conclusions remain ultimately to be
>draw remain very much to be seen.

As I noted before, if you were able to restrain yourself and avoid
the use of such epithets as "old scrotum" to refer to those you disagree
with, it would be a good idea.

>
>I have found nothing admirable, or worthy of thoughtful consideration
>from anything I have seen you post here. You appear to think you are
>clever trying to undermine and discredit other people's discussions
>when they appear to you to raise doubts as to your political agenda.

No. I am annoyed when people, like yourself, evade confronting the concrete
points made other posters by attacking the presumed ideological basis
of the opponent. I'm especially annoyed when these presumptions are
way off the mark.

> > This is truly an odd take on the civil war. Current historical thought
> > does not attribute the war to the activities of John Brown. On the other
> > hand, it was the extremist abolitionists who smuggled slaves to freedom,
> > refused to negotiate to find a compromise position with those who thought
> > that human beings could be property, and may have accelerated  the war.
> > If you think that the slaves could have been freed through negotiation
> > and compromise, you should come up with some evidence. If you think that
> > the slaves and the abolitionists should have turned the other cheek until
> > the slavers had a change of heart, then the colonial school system can
> > chalk up another victory.
>clearly and plainly again that you inherit the same traditions, and it
>
>John Brown and his son's fired the first shots. My argument is quite


This is just false. Arguably the first shots were fired by the
slavers who kidnapped Africans for the slave trade. Even on a closer
historical time frame, Brown's adventure at Harper's Ferry postdated
the bloodshed in Kansas which can be blamed pro-slavers as much as
anyone else. Your argument is quit clearly  based on a misunderstanding
of American history.

>
>That being the case, then how about demonstrating your own capacity for
>sophisticated understanding of whatever social dynamics there may be,
>that we might finally benefit from your discussion instead of suffering
>so from your determination to earn a reputation for yourself as a
>confrontationist, nit-picking, poorly informed deadshit.
>
>The only information about you, what you believe, what solutions you
>see in sight, how we might work on it better, arises from what you
>post here yourself.
>

Followed closely by:

>Yeah, plainly over your head. What a fuckwit you are, mister. What a
>tragedy to the rest of the world.
>

Have a nice day.




--


[e-mail]