"John H" wrote in message
...

Read the site. I suspect you've never delved deeper than the "Statement
of
Priniciples". When you have made a study of the entire PNAC program,
we'll be
on the same playing field in this discussion.

Before we start arguing the merits of each individual article on the
site, I think it's fair to discuss the principles of the organization.
We started with your comments shaping circumstances for favorable
outcomes, which you found arrogant. However, from later posts it seems
you agree with that statement.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling PEACEFULLY
in order to create favorable political or economic situations. Every country
on earth does that to the best of its ability. I suspect the problem is that
people involved with the PNAC have already demonstrated that whether to
meddle peacefully or with weapons is pretty much a coin toss - a 50/50
chance of either happening. Not much different than standing in the cleaning
products at the supermarket and picking Ajax instead of Comet because it
doesn't make much difference.

Gould 0738 wrote:

......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that
they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more
than a single opinion.

Wait a minute ... since when it it "courageous" to endorse the strategy
of apartheid, genocide, the overthrow of legitimate governments, or the
invasion of sovereign nations who threaten us in no way other than they
do not subscribe to the economic interests of the likes of Cheney and Bush?

The political strategies that brought us the concentration camps, the
stadiums of Argentina, the killing fields of Cambodia, installed the
Shah, and mined the harbors of Nicaragua were not "opinions." They were
atrocities and this nation will pay for those crimes for generations to
come.

Please do not dignify the NOYB's rabid bloodlust as "opinion." His voice
here is the cry of a frightened and angry mob.

Rick

I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling PEACEFULLY
in order to create favorable political or economic situations.

There's a difference between, "Let me show you the benefits of our economic
and cultural priorities and see if there might be something there that will
benefit both of us should you adopt it......"

and

"Let me show the business end of gun bigger than your entire army. You will now
adopt the following economic and cultural priorities because it will be good
for the United States if you do...."

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling
PEACEFULLY
in order to create favorable political or economic situations.

There's a difference between, "Let me show you the benefits of our
economic
and cultural priorities and see if there might be something there that
will
benefit both of us should you adopt it......"

and

"Let me show the business end of gun bigger than your entire army. You
will now
adopt the following economic and cultural priorities because it will be
good
for the United States if you do...."

Yeah. That's another way of putting it. No matter which method we use, it's
always going to come down to whether there's a win-win ending. If we use
choice B, it'll just take between 2 and 100 years longer.

On 01 Jan 2004 23:20:30 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling PEACEFULLY
in order to create favorable political or economic situations.

There's a difference between, "Let me show you the benefits of our economic
and cultural priorities and see if there might be something there that will
benefit both of us should you adopt it......"

and

"Let me show the business end of gun bigger than your entire army. You will now
adopt the following economic and cultural priorities because it will be good
for the United States if you do...."

It would appear as though you were again putting words in someone's
mouth.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

It would appear as though you were again putting words in someone's
mouth.

John H

No, it's a device known as "characterizing."

No person actually spoke those words.
They were simply chosen to represent, or "characterize" two contrasting
approaches.

What the heck do you teach, John?
I suspect it isn't language arts. :-)

Gould 0738 wrote:

It would appear as though you were again putting words in someone's
mouth.

John H

No, it's a device known as "characterizing."

No person actually spoke those words.
They were simply chosen to represent, or "characterize" two contrasting
approaches.

What the heck do you teach, John?
I suspect it isn't language arts. :-)



He doesn't teach. He babysits as a substitute, and basically is a
placeholder in various classes until the real teacher returns.
Short-term substitute teaching is a nice little racket; it allows the
school board to have an "adult" at the head of the class, and it gives
the students a break they shouldn't have, because very little teaching
takes place.





--
Email sent to is never read.

On 02 Jan 2004 07:43:22 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It would appear as though you were again putting words in someone's
mouth.

John H

No, it's a device known as "characterizing."

No person actually spoke those words.
They were simply chosen to represent, or "characterize" two contrasting
approaches.

What the heck do you teach, John?
I suspect it isn't language arts. :-)

I'm retired from teaching math. Now I do substitute teaching, which is
cheap babysitting unless the subject is math. Then I will teach
whatever the lesson of the day is.

"Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically
do whatever I want with someone's statement. I could take something
like this,

"We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for
American global leadership."

and, by "characterizing" change it to,

"We aim to bend the world to our moral and religious values, to
economically and morally colonize other countries, and become the
world's moral and military police."

I guess, if twisting and turning is allowed, then this
"characterization" stuff is quite cool. Thanks for the language arts
lesson.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


"Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically
do whatever I want with someone's statement. I could take something
like this,

Chuck offered just one example, as did you. But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish. Think of the typical unrehearsed
responses when reporters corner Curious George. Or even the rehearsed
statements, like "When we talk about war, we're really talkin' about peace".
scratching head

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:npeJb.32917

..... But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish.

I agree.

The ability and opportunity to characterize speech can help bring clarity
and understanding to those who otherwise simply wouldn't truly comprehend
what is happening. For example, in cases where circumstances require that
you carefully and specifically define the meaning of the word "is", or to
help elucidate the meaning of convoluted or confusing statements like "I
did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms Lewinski."

That sort of thing.