Too much hype about nothing

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread



-- (whooop@deee.dooo), March 12, 2002

Answers

Wonder how many $$$millions this is gonna cost the taxpayers?

-- (expensive@spot.lights), March 12, 2002.

"The lights, which will be powered by $10,000 worth of donated electricity from Con Edison, were turned on by 12-year-old Valerie Webb. Her father was killed in the attack.

The light towers will be illuminated nightly up until 11 p.m. for about the next month."

-- Dennis Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.


I think it's a poignant memorial.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 12, 2002.

are there two Batmans?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 12, 2002.

Wouldn't it be "BatMen?"

-- (just@wonder.ing), March 12, 2002.


I will permit myself to vent some of my boundless cynicism.

For all but 2%-3% of the American electorate (mostly those in NYC and DC and those who lost loved ones, for whom the wounds are still fresh), the shock and trauma of 9/11 is become a fading memory. For certain powerful people that powerful initial wave of emotion brought nothing but benefits. They rode it like expert surfers. Both Democrats and Republicans did this (although the Republicans have wrung more out of it, in general, by controlling more parts of the government).

Now the initial wave of emotion is subsiding. The impetus is fading. Newer concerns are pushing back to the front of most people's minds and those newer concerns are not so easy to play up to and are less easy to satisfy with symbolic gestures, patriotic speeches and saber-rattling.

That's what the hype is really all about - injecting more life into that wave. Expect more.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 12, 2002.


“the shock and trauma of 9/11 is become a fading memory”

Nipper, you must not have any friends or people to speak with, or you are just a moron (which I seriously doubt).

I know of NOBODY that has dismissed 9/11 as a fading memory. Of course, I have few friends or acquaintances that are sobbing liberals and none that are living off the public dole.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 12, 2002.


The wages of cynicism is beech and holly. LN, please get help before it's too late.

-- (lars@indy.net), March 12, 2002.

Are you saying you continue to feel shock and trauma on a daily basis?

Do you also live far from NYC or DC and didn't lose any friends, family members or acquaintances in the attacks?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then why do you think you continue to feel a continuing sense of shock and trauma in your personal daily life? I would be very interested to know.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 12, 2002.


Nipper, I can answer 'no' to only one of your questions. Death is inevitable, though, so eventually I get over that. Ever since the day of the attack, I've been afraid to go to work. We dealt with people on the scene that day. We dealt with people who were directly affected for several days after that. We dealt with freaked out America for months after that. The plane crash in New York freaked out the people we dealt with in that area -- but I was having serious trouble staying on the job in my safe comfy building. Hard to breathe, heart beating too fast, feeling faint. Too much adrenaline. That was the day I realized that the attack had affected me personally. Every single day I think about it as I walk in the door. If something happens, will I stick around and see it through this time?

-- helen (blue@bluer.bluest), March 12, 2002.


Nipper,

Am I as upset as I was? No. But every time I see a picture of New York without the Twin Towers, or see that film of people running for their lives from the collapse, or see the image of office workers jumping to their deaths rather than burn alive, a good bit of it comes back.

When I saw this particular image on the TV last night, the two lights where the Twin Towers used to be, I was very, very angry. Again.

And unlike some misguided morons, I do not blame the CIA, or Bush, or some wierd conspiracy involving internation Awl, or modern education, or economic inequity or social injustice.

I blame the Muslim terrorists who flew two airplanes full of innocent people into two towers filled with innocent people.

I accept that we are at war, about which liberals in general seem to be in complete denial, for a complex of reasons, from the fact that it distracts from their various agendas (one isn't as concerned about whether one wears fur or eats "unapproved" tuna when there's a war on, after all) to the fact that they are convinced, down to their bottom souls, that military action is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the provocation or no matter the clear and present danger presented by one's enemies.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 12, 2002.


Stephen M. Poole; “A voice of reason”

Heard by many, understood by few.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 12, 2002.


"Free (head@case.analysis)",

Is that you Poole? If not, good job of ass-kissing, anonymous one!

-- (smooch@smooch.smooch), March 12, 2002.


Stephen: "Am I as upset as I was? No. But every time I see a picture of New York without the Twin Towers, or see that film of people running for their lives from the collapse, or see the image of office workers jumping to their deaths rather than burn alive, a good bit of it comes back."

Which is one reason why you will continue to see such pictures at relatively frequent intervals. As I said, there are many people who benefit from keeping you as upset as possible. They will see to it that you stay upset, not just rationally angered - which I believe is justifiable - but emotionally, viscerally angry, which is not useful at all, except to make you pliable to their own suggestions. If you want to react usefully to 9/11, I would suggest that staying emotionally upset is not the most fruitful course, but that directing your anger into motivation for forming a rational response is much more productive.

Stephen: "And unlike some misguided morons, I do not blame the CIA, or Bush, or some wierd conspiracy involving internation Awl, or modern education, or economic inequity or social injustice."

Since you were addressing me in particular in this reply, this outburst seems rather unjustified. If I am not one these "morons", why make a point of telling me you don't agree with someone else who has nothing to do with me? If it is your position that I am one of these morons, then please cite where I align myself with them.

Stephen: "I accept that we are at war, about which liberals in general seem to be in complete denial, for a complex of reasons..."

In which case, Mr. Poole, you must either accept that "liberals" as you define them are a politically impotent fringe (and therefore not important) or else the polls that tell you that well over 80% of the American electorate approve of President Bush's performance in office are pure bullshit foisted off on the public. Either one conclusion or the other is true, but not both.

Over and over and over again, conservatives in this forum (and elsewhere) prove to me by their words and actions that they don't really want to address what I actually say or what I actually believe, but instead far prefer to set up straw men and knock them down. I am sorry to see you indulging in this same intellectual bancruptcy, Stephen.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 12, 2002.


SNORT!!!!

-- So (cr@t.es), March 13, 2002.


Oh stop whimpering Nip. You're not wrong about the shock wearing off and I for one have seen enough new American flags around to keep me for awhile. Easy to understand how we isolateds might be ready to back shelf a few thousand dead New York types but would have a Gore done that? What are these "newer concerns" and would they have been his? Me thinks so and that speaks so well for our good fortune.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), March 13, 2002.

LN:

Rightly or wrongly, I did not think Stephen's remark about misguided morons who blame the CIA etc was made with you in mind, but instead was made because we are confronted with such a moron every time we turn around.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), March 13, 2002.


Peter,

You got it in one. :)

Nipper,

The "liberal" label is too imprecise. There are classic "Rooseveltian" liberals, there are leftist radicals, you name it. I used it as a tossaway derogative here for fun, hence your concern.

Which is one reason why you will continue to see such pictures at relatively frequent intervals. As I said, there are many people who benefit from keeping you as upset as possible.

Now, if I were to accuse you of liberal arrogance, you'd be hurt, so I won't.[g]

Why do you assume that my "anger" is nothing but cheap visceral emotion, or even worse, that it would cause me to suspend logic and act solely from the basis of that emotion?

My anger is righteous indignation, coupled with the strong belief that, unless we send a CLEAR message to terrorists that the cost of doing things like Sept 11 is way too high to pay, they will continue to do stuff like this in the future.

One proof of this is that Taliban and Al Qaida captives have said that they were told that the United States would probably chuck a few cruise missiles, make some noise in the UN, and then let it die down. Meanwhile, they'd win a huge "moral" victory amongst radical muslim fundies. When we decided to go in and crush the Taliban government, their jaws dropped and they said, "wuuuh ... wait a minnit!"

Since you were addressing me in particular in this reply, this outburst seems rather unjustified.

Please, Nipper. I do not consider you one of these morons. I consider KoFE/Dumbya-is-a-moron/[whatever handle he's using today] to be the prototype, and I do NOT lump you with him. Never have, never will.

I have erected no strawcreatures. YOU have made an assumption which was incorrect, and if you re-read what I said, you'll see that I never accused you of sharing beliefs with the KoFEs of this world.

(Never will, either.)

In which case, Mr. Poole, you must either accept that "liberals" as you define them are a politically impotent fringe ...

... actually, this has always been the case -- as *I* define them, not as *you* define them ...

or else the polls that tell you that well over 80% of the American electorate approve of President Bush's performance in office are pure bullshit foisted off on the public.

No, there is another choice here: the majority of Americans are NOT liberal; they are moderate-to-conservative. Your binary logic here has the wrong state variables. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 13, 2002.


"LN:

Rightly or wrongly, I did not think Stephen's remark about misguided morons who blame the CIA etc was made with you in mind, but instead was made because we are confronted with such a moron every time we turn around.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), March 13, 2002."

Errorton,

This moron that you are confronted with seems to be the only thing keeping this forum alive. You intellectual dimwits can't seem to come up with anything to talk about except college basketball, at least these threads are spurring some activity.

The CIA is not to "blame" for 911, they are to blame for failing to alert the proper security personnel of the immediate threats, which the CIA was well aware of. Dumbya is a stooge for the New World Order elite, and this whole scenario was allowed to occur so that it could be exploited to advance their agenda of World domination. People in high places, much higher than government level, are calling the shots. The Bush family and the CIA are just playing their part accordingly to serve that agenda.

-- (get@clue.dimwit), March 13, 2002.


Yer right ‘dimwit’, that ole moron sure is stirin’ things up good.

You however seem to have your eggs done well, seeing how as you got the inside scoop on them NWO boys.

Keep up the good work!!

-- Send (mo@money.please), March 13, 2002.


Okay, you just keep swimming in that water froggy. Don't worry that it is getting warmer, your kind were meant to be cooked.

-- ROTFL (what@dumb.shit!), March 13, 2002.

LN has some "cynicism" about this administration, oh my will wonders never cease! You don't speak for the majority of people who were directly involved in the 9-11 attacks. Thank Christ you're part of a very small minority.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 13, 2002.

That's who weren't involved!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 13, 2002.

Stephen, as it turns out, my binary logic in this case worked out perfectly well. Using your definition of "liberal", there is not the slightest worry that the brand of "liberal" opinion that you deride will have the slightest effect on public policy at any time. You may as well furrow your brows and wring your hands over the fact that Marxist-Leninists in the USA are "in denial" about the eventual dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, I would point out that among people who identify themselves as liberals, your characterization of what they actually believe fails miserably and has little or no contact with reality.

I don't expect that this observation will persuade you to change your opinion about who is a liberal or what all liberals believe. But I would hope so. After all, this kind of behavior - losing contact with reality and defining a world into existance that cannot be altered by the introduction of contrary facts - is precisely the sort of behavior you have spent most of the past few years combatting among "doomers". If you persist in mislabeling liberals and mischaracterizing reality in this way, it would be... ironic... wouldn't you say?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 13, 2002.


LN,

Don't waste your time on Poole-Foole, he home-schools himself at the Rush Limbaugh School of Dittoheads. In their dictionary, anything they don't like is automatically "liberal". LOL

-- (ditto@head.morons), March 13, 2002.


LN, the dork above identifies with you. What a burden, you have my sympathies.

-- (lars@indy.net), March 13, 2002.

Dork??

Oooooh Lars, I'm so hurt.

-- lol (be@nice.bitch), March 13, 2002.


Has LN accepted your offer of sex?

-- (lars@indy.net), March 13, 2002.

Lars, with those two it would have to be oral.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 13, 2002.

Ya think? I figure that "dork" be a bitch.

-- (lars@indy.net), March 13, 2002.

Lars, I’m sure that the ‘dorks’ anus has it’s own street address but ‘little nipper’ didn’t come by that name for no reason.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), March 13, 2002.

LOL!!

Now we see what Repugs resort to when confronted with truth!

-- ROTFLMAO!!! (bwaaahahaha@haha.hahahaa!), March 13, 2002.


Forgive me ...

-- helen (rotflmao@lol.guffaw), March 13, 2002.

Heee haaaaw!!

Lars and his new butt-buddy "head case" sound like a couple of 4 year-olds!

-- (like dumbya @ like. child), March 13, 2002.


Unk, it sounds like time for another "love decree". What say, bro?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 13, 2002.

I love you, Little Nipper. I love you Lars. I love Unk. And I love Mars.

-- helen (straightens@up.flies.right.sorta), March 13, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ