| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Noon Cat Nick" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2006 10:51:31 PM |
| Object: |
18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
.
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
17 Jan 2006 10:54:21 PM |
|
|
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
18 Jan 2006 11:03:53 AM |
|
|
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
--
<email.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.planetark.com/>
The tongue, like a sharp knife,
kills without drawing blood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
21 Jan 2006 02:34:54 PM |
|
|
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
Umm thanks but I said I liked this type of defender, I didn't say
I wanted to support him. The guy's a complete maniac for goodness
sake! As for greenpeace I used to support them years ago until
they went and joined the rat race.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
21 Jan 2006 03:38:56 PM |
|
|
On 2006-01-21, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
Umm thanks but I said I liked this type of defender, I didn't say
I wanted to support him. The guy's a complete maniac for goodness
sake! As for greenpeace I used to support them years ago until
they went and joined the rat race.
Lots of money is required to maintain a fleet of six ships, a helicopter
and a hot air balloon. Especially when commercial whalers are ramming
them. <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331091.html>
And there're always the alternatives:
<http://www.earthfirst.org/>
and some with no fundraising at all:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front>
--
<reply.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.vim.org/>
<http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/lung/flu.html>
The gift of truth excels all other gifts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
24 Jan 2006 04:26:13 AM |
|
|
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-21, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
Umm thanks but I said I liked this type of defender, I didn't say
I wanted to support him. The guy's a complete maniac for goodness
sake! As for greenpeace I used to support them years ago until
they went and joined the rat race.
Lots of money is required to maintain a fleet of six ships, a helicopter
and a hot air balloon. Especially when commercial whalers are ramming
them. <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331091.html>
And there're always the alternatives:
<http://www.earthfirst.org/>
and some with no fundraising at all:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front>
Read my lips... I don't give a *****. I got my own problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
24 Jan 2006 01:32:09 PM |
|
|
On 2006-01-24, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-21, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
Umm thanks but I said I liked this type of defender, I didn't say
I wanted to support him. The guy's a complete maniac for goodness
sake! As for greenpeace I used to support them years ago until
they went and joined the rat race.
Lots of money is required to maintain a fleet of six ships, a helicopter
and a hot air balloon. Especially when commercial whalers are ramming
them. <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331091.html>
And there're always the alternatives:
<http://www.earthfirst.org/>
and some with no fundraising at all:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front>
Read my lips... I don't give a *****. I got my own problems.
That's OK. I'm just looking for any excuse to post particular types of
links.
And now they're all up there again.
--
<mail.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.alertnet.org/>
<http://tinyurl.com/axgl4>
With a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
26 Jan 2006 01:56:17 AM |
|
|
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-24, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-21, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
Umm thanks but I said I liked this type of defender, I didn't say
I wanted to support him. The guy's a complete maniac for goodness
sake! As for greenpeace I used to support them years ago until
they went and joined the rat race.
Lots of money is required to maintain a fleet of six ships, a helicopter
and a hot air balloon. Especially when commercial whalers are ramming
them. <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331091.html>
And there're always the alternatives:
<http://www.earthfirst.org/>
and some with no fundraising at all:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front>
Read my lips... I don't give a *****. I got my own problems.
That's OK. I'm just looking for any excuse to post particular types of
links.
And now they're all up there again.
And how many people did you influence with those "News" links?
Stop trying to save the world, Bev. It's not worth saving. Let it
die and be revived like it's been doing for 5 billion years or so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
26 Jan 2006 07:53:19 AM |
|
|
On 2006-01-26, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-24, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-21, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
Umm thanks but I said I liked this type of defender, I didn't say
I wanted to support him. The guy's a complete maniac for goodness
sake! As for greenpeace I used to support them years ago until
they went and joined the rat race.
Lots of money is required to maintain a fleet of six ships, a helicopter
and a hot air balloon. Especially when commercial whalers are ramming
them. <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331091.html>
And there're always the alternatives:
<http://www.earthfirst.org/>
and some with no fundraising at all:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front>
Read my lips... I don't give a *****. I got my own problems.
That's OK. I'm just looking for any excuse to post particular types of
links.
And now they're all up there again.
And how many people did you influence with those "News" links?
Stop trying to save the world, Bev. It's not worth saving. Let it
die and be revived like it's been doing for 5 billion years or so.
Who's trying to influence? The goal for me is to inform.
<http://www.google.ca/search?&q=define%3A+influence>
<http://www.google.ca/search?&q=define%3A+inform>
You may seek to influence me by getting me to stop doing whatever it is
you think I'm doing, but, tough luck there since that isn't what I'm doing
in the first place.
You have no right to tell me what to do or to stop doing, whether it is
posting links to charity sites or to the publication of actual news
sources. You can complain all you like, you have no influence, you're
powerless to stop me from doing either.
Also, those links aren't "News" links. One is from an independent media
outlet, two are from an online encyclopedia, two more go to charities and
the remaining one is to a homepage for a political movement. "News" comes
from news sources, things where the organisation is in the business of
publishing news. Would you like me to post news links again so that maybe
you can learn to tell the difference?
No one who actually does this stuff thinks they are saving the world.
"Save the World" is a war cry for people who are full of themselves, one
way or another. There is a UK charity named Save Our World and there is a
Save The World campaign within the World Environmental Organisation, but I
don't link to them and most of the rest of the environmentalist movement
doesn't either since one is an organ of industry and the other doesn't do
anything much except collect money.
Things die whether you or I let them or not. And dead things don't get
revived.
And, since you claim you don't give a *****, why are you trying to tell me
what not to do? Any logical reason at all? Or is your ego so big that you
think you have to be the ASD editor of what is "News" or what information
appears here?
Maybe you need your own wiki to control like the other one does because
the only control you can ever have here is over yourself.
Find it if you can.
--
<email.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.vvaw.org/>
<http://www.cdc.gov/flu/toolkit/>
A person creates what they defend against.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
26 Jan 2006 03:05:59 PM |
|
|
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-26, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-24, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-21, GlennT wrote:
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-18, GlennT wrote:
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on a
twenty-four-hour call to any spot on the globe where dispute and
conflict may erupt.
--Eldridge Cleaver, _Soul on Ice_, “Rallying Round the Flag” (1968)
Now there's a bad idea... I like Canadians with boats that have
"can openers".
You can help if you'd like. <http://www.seashepherd.org/>
Myself, I find Paul too violent, aggressive, and he's kind of full of
himself. I stopped supporting Sea Shepherd when he started doing the
sinkings. Greenpeace is more my way, also from Canada.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace>
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/>
R.I.P. Fernando Pereira
<http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp>
Umm thanks but I said I liked this type of defender, I didn't say
I wanted to support him. The guy's a complete maniac for goodness
sake! As for greenpeace I used to support them years ago until
they went and joined the rat race.
Lots of money is required to maintain a fleet of six ships, a helicopter
and a hot air balloon. Especially when commercial whalers are ramming
them. <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331091.html>
And there're always the alternatives:
<http://www.earthfirst.org/>
and some with no fundraising at all:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front>
Read my lips... I don't give a *****. I got my own problems.
That's OK. I'm just looking for any excuse to post particular types of
links.
And now they're all up there again.
And how many people did you influence with those "News" links?
Stop trying to save the world, Bev. It's not worth saving. Let it
die and be revived like it's been doing for 5 billion years or so.
Who's trying to influence? The goal for me is to inform.
<http://www.google.ca/search?&q=define%3A+influence>
<http://www.google.ca/search?&q=define%3A+inform>
You may seek to influence me by getting me to stop doing whatever it is
you think I'm doing, but, tough luck there since that isn't what I'm doing
in the first place.
You have no right to tell me what to do or to stop doing, whether it is
posting links to charity sites or to the publication of actual news
sources. You can complain all you like, you have no influence, you're
powerless to stop me from doing either.
Also, those links aren't "News" links. One is from an independent media
outlet, two are from an online encyclopedia, two more go to charities and
the remaining one is to a homepage for a political movement. "News" comes
from news sources, things where the organisation is in the business of
publishing news. Would you like me to post news links again so that maybe
you can learn to tell the difference?
No one who actually does this stuff thinks they are saving the world.
"Save the World" is a war cry for people who are full of themselves, one
way or another. There is a UK charity named Save Our World and there is a
Save The World campaign within the World Environmental Organisation, but I
don't link to them and most of the rest of the environmentalist movement
doesn't either since one is an organ of industry and the other doesn't do
anything much except collect money.
Things die whether you or I let them or not. And dead things don't get
revived.
And, since you claim you don't give a *****, why are you trying to tell me
what not to do? Any logical reason at all? Or is your ego so big that you
think you have to be the ASD editor of what is "News" or what information
appears here?
Maybe you need your own wiki to control like the other one does because
the only control you can ever have here is over yourself.
Find it if you can.
I have every right to tell you what to do just as you are always
telling everybody else what to do. If you don't like my replies
don't respond to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
26 Jan 2006 07:43:05 PM |
|
|
On 2006-01-26, GlennT wrote:
I have every right to tell you what to do just as you are always
telling everybody else what to do. If you don't like my replies
don't respond to me.
Blow it out your hole.
You can't control people's responses. You can livejournal.com, but not
here.
--
<reply.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://refugeecamp.org/>
The tongue, like a sharp knife,
kills without drawing blood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
26 Jan 2006 07:59:46 PM |
|
|
"Bev Thornton" <0126174149.4.bev@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtiul9.ajp.1.4.bev@xoxy.net...
On 2006-01-26, GlennT wrote:
I have every right to tell you what to do just as you are always
telling everybody else what to do. If you don't like my replies
don't respond to me.
Blow it out your hole.
You can't control people's responses. You can livejournal.com, but not
here.
--
<reply.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://refugeecamp.org/>
The tongue, like a sharp knife,
kills without drawing blood.
you can if you're me , i get blamed for doing it all the time
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
26 Jan 2006 08:56:41 PM |
|
|
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-26, GlennT wrote:
I have every right to tell you what to do just as you are always
telling everybody else what to do. If you don't like my replies
don't respond to me.
Blow it out your hole.
You can't control people's responses. You can livejournal.com, but not
here.
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do. You want to 'save the
world' whereas I have decided doing that makes me exasperated and
exercised. You seem to want me to do something that is bad for me
whereas I am suggesting you do something that may be good for
you. I'm sure we can be civilized about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 11:18:26 AM |
|
|
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
You want to 'save the world'
You must be imagining things, like that and the word 'should'. Someone
would have to have some kind of messianic self-image if they thought they
might be able to save the world. It's much easier to do specific things,
like lobby government for change of legislation or discourage business
from using environmentally harmful practices.
whereas I have decided doing that makes me exasperated and
exercised.
That's what you get for thinking you might be able to 'save the world'.
You seem to want me to do something that is bad for me
whereas I am suggesting you do something that may be good for
you. I'm sure we can be civilized about it.
Not if one person thinks they can command the other. That simply isn't
civil at all.
--
<reply.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.veteransforpeace.org/>
<http://www.clamxav.com/>
Non-attachment is the best of states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 11:38:14 AM |
|
|
"Bev Thornton" <0127090821.4.bev@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtklf1.fp0.1.4.bev@xoxy.net...
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
You want to 'save the world'
You must be imagining things, like that and the word 'should'. Someone
would have to have some kind of messianic self-image if they thought they
might be able to save the world. It's much easier to do specific things,
like lobby government for change of legislation or discourage business
from using environmentally harmful practices.
whereas I have decided doing that makes me exasperated and
exercised.
That's what you get for thinking you might be able to 'save the world'.
You seem to want me to do something that is bad for me
whereas I am suggesting you do something that may be good for
you. I'm sure we can be civilized about it.
Not if one person thinks they can command the other. That simply isn't
civil at all.
--
<reply.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.veteransforpeace.org/>
<http://www.clamxav.com/>
Non-attachment is the best of states.
says ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 11:53:09 AM |
|
|
On 2006-01-27, % wrote:
"Bev Thornton" <0127090821.4.bev@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtklf1.fp0.1.4.bev@xoxy.net...
Not if one person thinks they can command the other. That simply isn't
civil at all.
says ?
The word usage is by definition, the relevance is by context of two users
of a commons.
Here's an example: <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil>
civ·il adj. 1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens:
civil duties. 2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations
with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of
government. 3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as
distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil
authorities. 4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude:
a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite. 6. Being in accordance with or
denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year. 7. Law
Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings
concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or
international regulations or proceedings. [Middle English, from Latin
cvlis, from cvis, citizen; see civic.]
The relevant entry is the fifth.
--
<email.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.earthjustice.org/>
The only real failure in life is
to not be true to the best one knows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 11:59:45 AM |
|
|
"Bev Thornton" <0127094804.4.bev@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtkng5.fp0.1.4.bev@xoxy.net...
On 2006-01-27, % wrote:
"Bev Thornton" <0127090821.4.bev@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtklf1.fp0.1.4.bev@xoxy.net...
Not if one person thinks they can command the other. That simply isn't
civil at all.
says ?
The word usage is by definition, the relevance is by context of two users
of a commons.
Here's an example: <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil>
civ·il adj. 1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens:
civil duties. 2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations
with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of
government. 3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as
distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil
authorities. 4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude:
a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite. 6. Being in accordance with or
denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year. 7. Law
Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings
concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or
international regulations or proceedings. [Middle English, from Latin
cvlis, from cvis, citizen; see civic.]
The relevant entry is the fifth.
--
<email.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.earthjustice.org/>
The only real failure in life is
to not be true to the best one knows.
i didn't ask for a definition of the word
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 12:06:52 PM |
|
|
On 2006-01-27, % wrote:
"Bev Thornton" <0127094804.4.bev@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtkng5.fp0.1.4.bev@xoxy.net...
On 2006-01-27, % wrote:
"Bev Thornton" <0127090821.4.bev@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtklf1.fp0.1.4.bev@xoxy.net...
Not if one person thinks they can command the other. That simply isn't
civil at all.
says ?
The word usage is by definition, the relevance is by context of two users
of a commons.
Here's an example: <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil>
civ·il adj. 1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens:
civil duties. 2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations
with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of
government. 3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as
distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil
authorities. 4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude:
a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite. 6. Being in accordance with or
denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year. 7. Law
Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings
concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or
international regulations or proceedings. [Middle English, from Latin
cvlis, from cvis, citizen; see civic.]
The relevant entry is the fifth.
i didn't ask for a definition of the word
Too bad.
--
<reply.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.ifaw.org/>
Little by little a person becomes evil,
as a water pot is filled by drops of water.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 03:28:30 PM |
|
|
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
"Should" and "if you like" are expressions of the same stand.
"You *have* to", is a command. Show me where I said you have to.
You want to 'save the world'
You must be imagining things, like that and the word 'should'. Someone
would have to have some kind of messianic self-image if they thought they
might be able to save the world. It's much easier to do specific things,
like lobby government for change of legislation or discourage business
from using environmentally harmful practices.
But why do those things if they have no purpose? If they do have
a purpose what is it? If it's not saving the world it's saving
part of the world which is only a question of degree. I don't
need to join an organization to save my world. I don't need to
lobby anybody. I don't need to donate money. My world saving is
far more sensible and economically responsible. Plus, and this is
very important, I don't have to scare the ***** out of people in
the process.
whereas I have decided doing that makes me exasperated and
exercised.
That's what you get for thinking you might be able to 'save the world'.
I don't want to save the world. I even stated that fact. You must
be talking to yourself.
You seem to want me to do something that is bad for me
whereas I am suggesting you do something that may be good for
you. I'm sure we can be civilized about it.
Not if one person thinks they can command the other. That simply isn't
civil at all.
No it's not. You're right with that one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 06:14:07 PM |
|
|
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:dgwCf.36814$vH5.979077@news.xtra.co.nz...
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
"Should" and "if you like" are expressions of the same stand.
"You *have* to", is a command. Show me where I said you have to.
I don't agree. *Should* implies it is the right thing to do, implies a
sense of expectation, or even stretched to the limit, obligation. *If you
like* allows for personal choice. Doing whatever it is that you can do, or
are capable of doing, or what you are most comfortable doing. They are not
expressions of the same stand at all.
--
Rhiannon
rhianon@sympatico.ca
The Labyrinth
http://thelabyrinthofr.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 06:45:36 PM |
|
|
Rhiannon wrote:
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:dgwCf.36814$vH5.979077@news.xtra.co.nz...
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
"Should" and "if you like" are expressions of the same stand.
"You *have* to", is a command. Show me where I said you have to.
I don't agree. *Should* implies it is the right thing to do, implies a
sense of expectation, or even stretched to the limit, obligation. *If you
like* allows for personal choice. Doing whatever it is that you can do, or
are capable of doing, or what you are most comfortable doing. They are not
expressions of the same stand at all.
Okay, then describe the difference between "should" and "must"
and you'll make my point just as easily as you've just tried to
make Bev's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 10:48:20 PM |
|
|
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:19zCf.38059$vH5.980334@news.xtra.co.nz...
Rhiannon wrote:
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:dgwCf.36814$vH5.979077@news.xtra.co.nz...
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
"Should" and "if you like" are expressions of the same stand.
"You *have* to", is a command. Show me where I said you have to.
I don't agree. *Should* implies it is the right thing to do, implies a
sense of expectation, or even stretched to the limit, obligation. *If
you
like* allows for personal choice. Doing whatever it is that you can do,
or
are capable of doing, or what you are most comfortable doing. They are
not
expressions of the same stand at all.
Okay, then describe the difference between "should" and "must"
and you'll make my point just as easily as you've just tried to
make Bev's.
I may be confused, as usual, but I didn't see *must* in the original thread.
Did I miss something? And I'm not trying to make Bev's point for him. He
can do that without me. I just think these expressions are not of the same
stand.
--
Rhiannon
rhianon@sympatico.ca
The Labyrinth
http://thelabyrinthofr.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
29 Jan 2006 09:57:00 PM |
|
|
Rhiannon wrote:
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:19zCf.38059$vH5.980334@news.xtra.co.nz...
Rhiannon wrote:
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:dgwCf.36814$vH5.979077@news.xtra.co.nz...
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
"Should" and "if you like" are expressions of the same stand.
"You *have* to", is a command. Show me where I said you have to.
I don't agree. *Should* implies it is the right thing to do, implies a
sense of expectation, or even stretched to the limit, obligation. *If
you
like* allows for personal choice. Doing whatever it is that you can do,
or
are capable of doing, or what you are most comfortable doing. They are
not
expressions of the same stand at all.
Okay, then describe the difference between "should" and "must"
and you'll make my point just as easily as you've just tried to
make Bev's.
I may be confused, as usual, but I didn't see *must* in the original thread.
Did I miss something? And I'm not trying to make Bev's point for him. He
can do that without me. I just think these expressions are not of the same
stand.
I think they are of a similar stand but like all semantics it is
open to interpretation that wasn't meant. The whole point was
there was no "must". I was told that my "should" was a command.
"Should" is not a command, "must" is a command. So if you say to
someone they should go down to the store because there are things
on special, are you commanding that person or making a suggestion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
30 Jan 2006 12:09:11 AM |
|
|
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:k8gDf.76633$vH5.1009750@news.xtra.co.nz...
I think they are of a similar stand but like all semantics it is
open to interpretation that wasn't meant. The whole point was
there was no "must". I was told that my "should" was a command.
"Should" is not a command, "must" is a command. So if you say to
someone they should go down to the store because there are things
on special, are you commanding that person or making a suggestion?
I have to agree with you on this. Should is not a command and is commonly
used as suggestion.
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
29 Jan 2006 10:49:42 PM |
|
|
In article <k8gDf.76633$vH5.1009750@news.xtra.co.nz>,
GlennT <askme@noname.nz> wrote:
I think they are of a similar stand but like all semantics it is
open to interpretation that wasn't meant. The whole point was
there was no "must". I was told that my "should" was a command.
"Should" is not a command, "must" is a command. So if you say to
someone they should go down to the store because there are things
on special, are you commanding that person or making a suggestion?
Well, in all fairness (and without regard for your conflict with the
Bevelator, this is completely unrelated to that), words like these are
some of the most flexible in the language, semantically.
A suggestion, offered by a friend: "Oh, her new album is so good, you
simply must hear it!"
A command, given by a supervisor: "I'll need this on my desk by 5:00, so
you should have it finished by no later than 4:30."
Most words, except absolutely technical terms like "pneumosilicosis",
have this sort of flexibility, so it's generally good to regard someone
else's "wrong" use of a word as an occasion for exploring what
additional meanings it might have for them.
Some people, unfortunately, pick one meaning of a word, decree that it
the the "correct" meaning, and treat anyone who uses it differently as
either stupid or deceitful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
29 Jan 2006 10:54:01 PM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrrgggbbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:EVgDf.369627$vC.254375@fe12.news.easynews.com...
In article <k8gDf.76633$vH5.1009750@news.xtra.co.nz>,
GlennT <askme@noname.nz> wrote:
I think they are of a similar stand but like all semantics it is
open to interpretation that wasn't meant. The whole point was
there was no "must". I was told that my "should" was a command.
"Should" is not a command, "must" is a command. So if you say to
someone they should go down to the store because there are things
on special, are you commanding that person or making a suggestion?
Well, in all fairness (and without regard for your conflict with the
Bevelator, this is completely unrelated to that), words like these are
some of the most flexible in the language, semantically.
A suggestion, offered by a friend: "Oh, her new album is so good, you
simply must hear it!"
A command, given by a supervisor: "I'll need this on my desk by 5:00, so
you should have it finished by no later than 4:30."
Most words, except absolutely technical terms like "pneumosilicosis",
have this sort of flexibility, so it's generally good to regard someone
else's "wrong" use of a word as an occasion for exploring what
additional meanings it might have for them.
Some people, unfortunately, pick one meaning of a word, decree that it
the the "correct" meaning, and treat anyone who uses it differently as
either stupid or deceitful.
you should lighten up
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
29 Jan 2006 10:54:27 PM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
In article <k8gDf.76633$vH5.1009750@news.xtra.co.nz>,
GlennT <askme@noname.nz> wrote:
I think they are of a similar stand but like all semantics it is
open to interpretation that wasn't meant. The whole point was
there was no "must". I was told that my "should" was a command.
"Should" is not a command, "must" is a command. So if you say to
someone they should go down to the store because there are things
on special, are you commanding that person or making a suggestion?
Well, in all fairness (and without regard for your conflict with the
Bevelator, this is completely unrelated to that), words like these are
some of the most flexible in the language, semantically.
A suggestion, offered by a friend: "Oh, her new album is so good, you
simply must hear it!"
A command, given by a supervisor: "I'll need this on my desk by 5:00, so
you should have it finished by no later than 4:30."
Most words, except absolutely technical terms like "pneumosilicosis",
have this sort of flexibility, so it's generally good to regard someone
else's "wrong" use of a word as an occasion for exploring what
additional meanings it might have for them.
Some people, unfortunately, pick one meaning of a word, decree that it
the the "correct" meaning, and treat anyone who uses it differently as
either stupid or deceitful.
Good point. I think it is a non point which is probably my point.
Pointedly speaking it's pretty pointless. But you don't need me
to point that out.
"Look there's a cow!!", pointing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
29 Jan 2006 10:58:23 PM |
|
|
In article <b_gDf.76656$vH5.1010150@news.xtra.co.nz>,
GlennT <askme@noname.nz> wrote:
Good point. I think it is a non point which is probably my point.
Pointedly speaking it's pretty pointless. But you don't need me
to point that out.
"Look there's a cow!!", pointing.
I'd call that a mooed point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
29 Jan 2006 10:59:13 PM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrrgggbbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:O1hDf.369635$vC.13690@fe12.news.easynews.com...
In article <b_gDf.76656$vH5.1010150@news.xtra.co.nz>,
GlennT <askme@noname.nz> wrote:
Good point. I think it is a non point which is probably my point.
Pointedly speaking it's pretty pointless. But you don't need me
to point that out.
"Look there's a cow!!", pointing.
I'd call that a mooed point.
utterly ridiculous
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
30 Jan 2006 11:58:37 AM |
|
|
On 2006-01-30, GlennT wrote:
I think they are of a similar stand but like all semantics it is
open to interpretation that wasn't meant. The whole point was
there was no "must". I was told that my "should" was a command.
By who?
No one did that.
"Should" is not a command, "must" is a command. So if you say to
someone they should go down to the store because there are things
on special, are you commanding that person or making a suggestion?
This is a command: Stop trying
The word 'should' wasn't in it. It's simply a statement made in the
imperative voice and that makes it a command.
Should wasn't in "You can help if you'd like" either. It didn't even come
up until you claimed it was.
--
<email.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.peacebrigades.org/>
Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent
of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: 18 Jan 2006 - today's quote |
27 Jan 2006 08:45:44 PM |
|
|
On 2006-01-28, GlennT wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:
"GlennT" <askme@noname.nz> wrote in message
news:dgwCf.36814$vH5.979077@news.xtra.co.nz...
Bev Thornton wrote:
On 2006-01-27, GlennT wrote:
No need to be so exasperated. Exercised. You suggested to me what
I should do and I, what you should do.
No, my words were "If you'd like." There was no 'should' to it.
"Should" and "if you like" are expressions of the same stand.
"You *have* to", is a command. Show me where I said you have to.
I don't agree. *Should* implies it is the right thing to do, implies a
sense of expectation, or even stretched to the limit, obligation. *If you
like* allows for personal choice. Doing whatever it is that you can do, or
are capable of doing, or what you are most comfortable doing. They are not
expressions of the same stand at all.
Okay, then describe the difference between "should" and "must"
and you'll make my point just as easily as you've just tried to
make Bev's.
"Must"?
Where do you get 'must'?
Life is easier if the world isn't blurred.
--
<email.4.bev@xoxy.net> Support: <http://www.amref.org/>
Weeds are the bane of fields,
delusion the bane of mankind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
