|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Truth
| Truth [message #1096105] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 08:45 |
|
|
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1096113 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 09:35 |
|
woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
Hasn't he fulfilled his duty to die?
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1096114 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 10:42 |
|
woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
Indeed, this is the truth.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1096120 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 13:58 |
|
On 16 Jul 2006 01:42:08 -0700, "Mercellus Bohren"
<mercellusb [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>
>Indeed, this is the truth.
I think I have to agree. out of many one -- not into one many.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1096125 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 14:53 |
|
Dennis wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2006 01:42:08 -0700, "Mercellus Bohren"
> <mercellusb [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
> >> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
> >
> >Indeed, this is the truth.
>
> I think I have to agree. out of many one -- not into one many.
Yes, the foundation of this nation is wonderful and incredible. I am so
proud and fortunate to have been born here.
And now, another long blah. blah, blah...
I am all for autonomy, personal freedom, and the like. I love our
United States. I love to be able to move to Chicago, or Denver, or
Seattle, or here, to Houston, on a whim and never even think about
whether my papers are in order or who I need to check in with, upon
departure and arrival, and who may or may not accept me and my family.
Do people ever stop to consider what that would be like, I wonder?
I really have no concept of the mindset of people from global cultures
significantly different from my own; this isn't something I've done
wrong; it's just almost impossible to understand witout being immersed
in some other culture for a significant period. I think I understand
African American and Mexican American cultures, but I really like these
cultures and participate in their environment, but I don't "live them,"
so some of what they think and do is impossible for me to understand
completely. (I like Tejano music and good non-abusive hip hop...for
one.)
This makes me a racist in some eyes; and maybe I am. I have stated in
this forum that we are all racists, I don't care who you think you are,
and I still believe it. This isn't original thinking; it's been said in
other places, but, it's true.
I have had plently of cross-cultural training because I must
communicate effectively in business with people from all over the
world. My current boss is Russian; he's been in country for about 10
years. Guess what? He tries like hell to understand "America" does
"American things," loves Texas (I think), and misses his homeland
terribly (sometimes, I'm sure). I use language at work similarly to how
I use it in this forum (creatively; insanely on occasion). We have long
conversations about regional colloquialisms and the like that are very
interesting. He's trying to pick up on these things.
America is a metling pot (like the article states). It works on that
level and can continue to work on that level.... but we will hasten our
inevitable decline and fall if we turn this into a divided plate of
autonomous cultures that have no concept of coming together for the
common good of one nation and one people.
Our immigrants need to all understand this; unless they are perceived
to be overthrowing our country; the greatest nation, possibly, in the
history of the world. And if these people think that we're goint to put
up with ethnic cleansing...
they have another thing coming (1$ Judas Preist).
TIA
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1096136 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 16:45 |
|
woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
analyses of western history.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1096139 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 16:57 |
|
woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
Trent? You're still alive?
Dan
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098342 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 06:01 |
|
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:45:26 -0400, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjones [at] soartech.com> wrote:
>>woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>analyses of western history.
I would expect a raving liberal to think that.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098347 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 06:22 |
|
woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:45:26 -0400, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjones [at] soartech.com> wrote:
>>> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>
>> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>> analyses of western history.
>
> I would expect a raving liberal to think that.
>
>
Yah, but that's because you're crotchety.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098382 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 16:34 |
|
Randolph M. Jones wrote:
> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>
> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
> analyses of western history.
It was not only coherent, it was absolutely correct.
--
Mike Dahmus
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098409 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 18:22 |
|
Mike Dahmus wrote:
> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>>
>> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>> analyses of western history.
>
> It was not only coherent, it was absolutely correct.
>
"History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and
antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures."
Why don't we just shorten this to its more accurate form "History shows
that no nation has survived," and then we can feel free to plug in
whatever reasons that happen to grind our own particular axes?
It's really a shock to discover that there are not, and have never been,
places where people speaking more than one language actually
manage/managed to live together.
As Schrumpf likes to do, you guys are recreating history in your desired
image.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098424 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 19:29 |
|
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Randolph M. Jones:
> Mike Dahmus wrote:
>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>>>
>>> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>>> analyses of western history.
>>
>> It was not only coherent, it was absolutely correct.
> "History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and
> antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures."
Sorry I missed that gem.
> Why don't we just shorten this to its more accurate form "History shows
> that no nation has survived," and then we can feel free to plug in
> whatever reasons that happen to grind our own particular axes?
He actually says that to start off, then goes off on this rant
that is really irrelevant after that statement.
> It's really a shock to discover that there are not, and have never been,
> places where people speaking more than one language actually
> manage/managed to live together.
> As Schrumpf likes to do, you guys are recreating history in your desired
> image.
Spanish has been spoken in this country since before English
was spoken here.
I wonder if they are using the Tsarist Russification program as
their model? Of course, one very tight culture that the Tsar
realized had to be eliminated was the Jewish culture. Can't
go having that sort of independent cultural group in your
midst, no telling what kind of sedition and subversion they
might cause.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098448 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 20:02 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Randolph M. Jones:
>> Mike Dahmus wrote:
>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>>> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>>>> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>>>> analyses of western history.
>>> It was not only coherent, it was absolutely correct.
>
>> "History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and
>> antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures."
>
> Sorry I missed that gem.
>
>> Why don't we just shorten this to its more accurate form "History shows
>> that no nation has survived," and then we can feel free to plug in
>> whatever reasons that happen to grind our own particular axes?
>
> He actually says that to start off, then goes off on this rant
> that is really irrelevant after that statement.
>
>> It's really a shock to discover that there are not, and have never been,
>> places where people speaking more than one language actually
>> manage/managed to live together.
>
>> As Schrumpf likes to do, you guys are recreating history in your desired
>> image.
>
> Spanish has been spoken in this country since before English
> was spoken here.
>
> I wonder if they are using the Tsarist Russification program as
> their model? Of course, one very tight culture that the Tsar
> realized had to be eliminated was the Jewish culture. Can't
> go having that sort of independent cultural group in your
> midst, no telling what kind of sedition and subversion they
> might cause.
Lots of civilizations have successfully mixed multiple languages and
cultures, including ours. When serious "multi-cultural problems" arise,
it is usually because one group or another has decided that one of the
cultures/languages must be the dominant one, and that it is appropriate
to use political and/or military force to create or maintain that
dominance. "Happy" civilizations are those that let "cultural
dominance" ebb and flow.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098486 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 21:36 |
|
rich hammett <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> writes:
>
> Spanish has been spoken in this country since before English
> was spoken here.
Indeed. To here Winconsinites complain about
Spanish is one thing, but when people in CA, AZ,
NM, or TX whine, "Why are the signs in the airport
in English and Spanish, why should Spanish get any
special treatment compared to, say, Polish?," you
really gotta wonder if they ever even took high
school history.
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: kennedy [at] asuvax.eas.asu.edu
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098490 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 21:51 |
|
Randolph M. Jones wrote:
> Mike Dahmus wrote:
>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>>>
>>> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>>> analyses of western history.
>>
>> It was not only coherent, it was absolutely correct.
>>
>
> "History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and
> antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures."
>
> Why don't we just shorten this to its more accurate form "History shows
> that no nation has survived," and then we can feel free to plug in
> whatever reasons that happen to grind our own particular axes?
>
> It's really a shock to discover that there are not, and have never been,
> places where people speaking more than one language actually
> manage/managed to live together.
>
> As Schrumpf likes to do, you guys are recreating history in your desired
> image.
Not speaking politically, here, but simply as someone interested in
languages, India has about 1000 different languages spoken within its
borders and around a dozen official ones. (I think Sanskrit is an
official language even though nobody actually speaks it anymore. I could
be wrong on both counts and be simply indulging myself in muddle and
whimsy.) The young Indians in my office are each fluent in 4 and
understand a few others. It just comes with the territory. Papua New
Guinea has more languages spoken within its tiny borders than India, but
I don't think Papua New Guinea is anyone's idea of a state. Particularly
the people who live there. If India is too nouveau or too fragile to
qualify for Cohen, I believe the amicable Belgians have lived with
French, German, and Walloon speakers now for as long as there's been a
Belgium. Language and its demands are seen by some as opportunities
rather than impediments, much less as a source of calculated grudges.
I've recently been reading about some of the languages which white
Australians drove to extinction. There were proprieties and courtesies
once that are now lost. One language had an entire branch devoted
entirely to the words and phrases one used in the presence of close
relatives by marriage. It also conjugated verbs depending upon such
things as luminosity. Or how one stood upon the ground. When a language
dies, it's a genuinely sobering, saddening loss.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098613 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 16:24 |
|
Jeff Davis wrote:
> I believe the amicable Belgians have lived with
> French, German, and Walloon speakers now for as long as there's been a
> Belgium. Language and its demands are seen by some as opportunities
> rather than impediments, much less as a source of calculated grudges.
You mean Dutch (aka Flemish), French and German. Walloon is a (nearly
extinct) dialect related to French, not an official language. Even
though German is an official language it's only spoken by about 1% of
the population, more than 60% of Belgians speak Dutch (aka Flemish) and
about 35% speak French.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098622 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 16:52 |
|
Randolph M. Jones wrote:
> Mike Dahmus wrote:
>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>>>
>>> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>>> analyses of western history.
>>
>> It was not only coherent, it was absolutely correct.
>>
>
> "History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and
> antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures."
>
> Why don't we just shorten this to its more accurate form "History shows
> that no nation has survived," and then we can feel free to plug in
> whatever reasons that happen to grind our own particular axes?
>
> It's really a shock to discover that there are not, and have never been,
> places where people speaking more than one language actually
> manage/managed to live together.
Do you have straw in your urethra yet?
The implication was that on a NATIONAL LEVEL, no nation has survived
having multiple languages/cultures for very long without becoming
severely fucked up.
I find that conclusion to be quite reasonable. Our neighbors to the
north, for instance.
--
Mike Dahmus
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098623 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 16:53 |
|
Ralph Kennedy wrote:
> rich hammett <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> writes:
>> Spanish has been spoken in this country since before English
>> was spoken here.
>
> Indeed. To here Winconsinites complain about
> Spanish is one thing, but when people in CA, AZ,
> NM, or TX whine, "Why are the signs in the airport
> in English and Spanish, why should Spanish get any
> special treatment compared to, say, Polish?," you
> really gotta wonder if they ever even took high
> school history.
Gee, did the signs at Penn Station come in German and Polish back in the
day? If not, your analogy is broked.
--
Mike Dahmus
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098629 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 17:03 |
|
NovaProspekt wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> I believe the amicable Belgians have lived with
>> French, German, and Walloon speakers now for as long as there's been a
>> Belgium. Language and its demands are seen by some as opportunities
>> rather than impediments, much less as a source of calculated grudges.
>
> You mean Dutch (aka Flemish), French and German. Walloon is a (nearly
> extinct) dialect related to French, not an official language. Even
> though German is an official language it's only spoken by about 1% of
> the population, more than 60% of Belgians speak Dutch (aka Flemish) and
> about 35% speak French.
>
I presume the be in your address means Belgium, so I'll defer to you. My
source, ethnologue.com, reports that 1.1 of you speak Walloon ("although
there are few monolinguals"). It also reports 1070000 speakers of
Vlaams, 30000 speakers of Luxembourgeois, 600000 speakers of
Limburgisch, 150000 speakers of standard German, 4000000 French
speakers, and 4620150 Dutch speakers.
I suspect that an ethnologue's distinction about what makes a language
vs a dialect is different than what a lay person's understanding would
be, but I'm never quite sure. From Puerto de la Coruña to San Remo is
a run of a 1040.4 of modern democratic industrial highway and you pass
through Galicia, Basque Country, Spain, Catalonia , France, and Italy.
I'm told that every townsman along the way can understand the townsmen
on either side of him, but at the end the Galician and the Italian are
incomprehensible to one another.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BE
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098635 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 17:22 |
|
Mike Dahmus wrote:
> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>> Mike Dahmus wrote:
>>> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>>>> woodruffs [at] cableone.net wrote:
>>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
>>>>
>>>> That's the most incoherent rant I've read since one of Schrumpf's
>>>> analyses of western history.
>>>
>>> It was not only coherent, it was absolutely correct.
>>>
>>
>> "History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and
>> antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures."
>>
>> Why don't we just shorten this to its more accurate form "History
>> shows that no nation has survived," and then we can feel free to plug
>> in whatever reasons that happen to grind our own particular axes?
>>
>> It's really a shock to discover that there are not, and have never
>> been, places where people speaking more than one language actually
>> manage/managed to live together.
>
> Do you have straw in your urethra yet?
>
> The implication was that on a NATIONAL LEVEL, no nation has survived
> having multiple languages/cultures for very long without becoming
> severely fucked up.
>
> I find that conclusion to be quite reasonable. Our neighbors to the
> north, for instance.
>
The multiple languages/cultures dimension is not diagnostic. Nations
get severely fucked up for lots of reasons. And there have been lots of
multi-cultural/multi-lingual nations that "did fine" for a long, long
time. The only reason to blame these fuckups on "multiculturalism" is
if you've decided that's your particular axe to grind. And it becomes
all the more suspicious if you happen to be a practitioner of the
dominant culture and language, and you are advocating as a "solution"
that everybody should be more like you. You could more persuasively
argue that the REALLY severe national fuck-ups happen when one or more
of the groups start trying to insist that theirs be the "official"
language and culture (like that's even possible).
The conclusion is not reasonable from any diagnostic viewpoint. And
even if it were, if the proposed solution is to "impose assimilation" on
the non-dominant languages and cultures, you can look at history again
to see how well that approach tends to work out.
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098708 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 21:17 |
|
Randolph M. Jones wrote:
> And it becomes
> all the more suspicious if you happen to be a practitioner of the
> dominant culture and language, and you are advocating as a "solution"
> that everybody should be more like you.
What if I'm a guy who would try to speak Spanish if I was travelling to
Mexico, and for damn sure if I lived there?
Why is it that most folks of the liberal persuasion who tend to spend
long periods of time in other countries take pride in learning the
language of said country; but then don't expect immigrants to this
country to do the same thing?
--
Mike Dahmus
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/
|
|
|
| Re: Truth [message #1098765 ] |
Mon, 24 July 2006 00:03 |
|
Mike Dahmus wrote:
> Randolph M. Jones wrote:
>> And it becomes all the more suspicious if you happen to be a
>> practitioner of the dominant culture and language, and you are
>> advocating as a "solution" that everybody should be more like you.
>
> What if I'm a guy who would try to speak Spanish if I was travelling to
> Mexico, and for damn sure if I lived there?
That would most likely be the most sensible choice. Certainly, it's
what I would do.
> Why is it that most folks of the liberal persuasion who tend to spend
> long periods of time in other countries take pride in learning the
> language of said country; but then don't expect immigrants to this
> country to do the same thing?
>
I expect immigrants who want to get by in the US to learn English or
deal with the consequences of the choice not to...and lo and behold,
they do. I don't think the USA is going to fall apart just because
there are large groups of people participating in non-mainstream
cultures or speaking primarily non-English languages...I think there
*will* much more likely be problems if people start trying to impose
laws concerning "official" culture and language. I think the ACCEPTANCE
of cultural variety makes a nation stronger.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fri Dec 5 01:21:10 CET 2008
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.11449 Sekunden |
