Play it again, Sam

Except for the fact there was no apology, no appeasement and certainly no moral cowardice.

After misrepresenting the event in such a partisan way, I saw no point in continuing to read nonsense.

What do you see as the purpose of the statement that was issued?

Querying in Queensland,
Ellie
 
Except for the fact there was no apology, no appeasement and certainly no moral cowardice.

After misrepresenting the event in such a partisan way, I saw no point in continuing to read nonsense.

Harris is a liberal.

His point has always been confrontational. Don't respect faith. Challenge it.
 
Harris is a liberal.

His point has always been confrontational. Don't respect faith. Challenge it.

*nod nod* How anyone could characterize what he wrote as partisan is beyond me. The issue transcends cozy left/right assumptions.

Shrugging in Shreveport,
Ellie
 
What do you see as the purpose of the statement that was issued?

Querying in Queensland,
Ellie

To condemn the opinions in the movie that we knew would be considered as anywhere from hateful to blasphemous and to explain that the US government does not agree with them to minimize the potential damage.

That is in no way an apology or appeasement. As a first response, I thought it was prudent which is what you want in that kind of situation.
 
To condemn the opinions in the movie that we knew would be considered as anywhere from hateful to blasphemous and to explain that the US government does not agree with them to minimize the potential damage.

That is in no way an apology or appeasement. As a first response, I thought it was prudent which is what you want in that kind of situation.

In which case, I'm compelled to ask you why that doesn't fall within the realm of appeasement.

And I'm similarly compelled to appease any consternation that might arise from my responding to your post so late, by explaining that I didn't see your response until lately. ;)

Mixing in Missoula,
Ellie
 
In which case, I'm compelled to ask you why that doesn't fall within the realm of appeasement.

And I'm similarly compelled to appease any consternation that might arise from my responding to your post so late, by explaining that I didn't see your response until lately. ;)

Mixing in Missoula,
Ellie

Oh look, Ellie's playing word games again!

There are two generally accepted definitions of the word appeasement: The first one has to do with interpersonal dynamics, i.e. soothing or calming an aggrieved party.

There's also a definition that applies mainly to governments, where "appeasement" is defined as making diplomatic concessions to a foreign aggressor.

What we see here is Ellie attempting to gain consensus for the first definition above (tweaking Zipman) when we all know she's attempting to tar and feather President Obama with the latter, more derogatory, definition.

Tee hee...Ellie gets to have her cake and eat it too! Isn't she oh so clever!

Mama always said "intellectual dishonesty" and "Ellie Talbot" went together like peas 'n carrots.
 
Oh look, Ellie's playing word games again!

There are two generally accepted definitions of the word appeasement: The first one has to do with interpersonal dynamics, i.e. soothing or calming an aggrieved party.

There's also a definition that applies mainly to governments, where "appeasement" is defined as making diplomatic concessions to a foreign aggressor.

What we see here is Ellie attempting to gain consensus for the first definition above (tweaking Zipman) when we all know she's attempting to tar and feather President Obama with the latter, more derogatory, definition.

Tee hee...Ellie gets to have her cake and eat it too! Isn't she oh so clever!

Mama always said "intellectual dishonesty" and "Ellie Talbot" went together like peas 'n carrots.


Trying to gain "consensus" is a fool's errand, under most circumstances.

Trying to be truthful, however, is not. You either speak the truth as you know it, or you don't.

You didn't participate in this thread when I posted it, and you've only capriciously chosen to do so now, probably because you were bored.

But in case you haven't noticed, I bumped it to specifically reply to zipman. Unlike you, his replies to my posts usually contain a point, or an angle I hadn't considered before - not a silly personal attack made of stoopid. I like that about him.

You just try to turn it into a circus.

Truthful in Tonga,
Ellie"
 
Last edited:
Unlike you, his replies to my posts usually contain a point, or an angle I hadn't considered before - not a silly personal attack made of stoopid.
Unfortunately, that's all Rob seems to be able to muster up anymore.

You just try to turn it into a circus.
Rob's become the clown that runs around squirting people in the face with his lapel sunflower. He's taken over LT's job.
 
Unfortunately, that's all Rob seems to be able to muster up anymore.

Rob's become the clown that runs around squirting people in the face with his lapel sunflower. He's taken over LT's job.

It's a role he seems to relish. Far be it from me to deprive him of it.

Allocating in Allentown,
Ellie
 
And in other news...

So... how about that Sam Harris article? *grin*

Rolling in Rwanda,
Ellie
 
Grovelling Rob might have a point if Islamic appeasement actually did anything, but it doesn't. When the president falls on bended knee to apologize for something that some idiot did, Wahhabists only hear the idiot. Every time the radicals gets mad, Obama puts another bullet in the Chamberlain. Where has that gotten us so far?
 
Trying to gain "consensus" is a fool's errand, under most circumstances.

Trying to be truthful, however, is not. You either speak the truth as you know it, or you don't.

You didn't participate in this thread when I posted it, and you've only capriciously chosen to do so now, probably because you were bored.

But in case you haven't noticed, I bumped it to specifically reply to zipman. Unlike you, his replies to my posts usually contain a point, or an angle I hadn't considered before - not a silly personal attack made of stoopid. I like that about him.

You just try to turn it into a circus.

Truthful in Tonga,
Ellie"

Oh, you are sooo right, I didn't see this thread originally. But hey, you bumped it to the front page and I took the time to read your latest hot steamin' batch of intellectual dishonesty, so give me some credit.

....or don't. It makes no difference to me.

Unfortunately, that's all Rob seems to be able to muster up anymore.

Rob's become the clown that runs around squirting people in the face with his lapel sunflower. He's taken over LT's job.

Oh look, Byron's doin' his mating dance for Ellie now! Things with Neci didn't work out?
tumblr_llezdmQYDH1qgne6io1_500.gif
 
The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution establishes both the law and tradition of governmental tolerance for the most offensively extreme ideas and speech. Ideas and speech so far outside the mainstream of civilized thought as to perhaps be held by a minority of one.

Any attempt to explain this government-to-citizen relationship phenomena to those who might not understand it is likely to focus on one of two stark truths -- either the implied value of the governmental and societal "tolerance" or the degree to which the offensive speech departs from the "civilized mainstream."

Emphasizing either of these truths does not imply that the apologist has forgotten the other egalitarian principle even if frequent repetition of a given explanation would suggest otherwise.

What does seem to frequently be forgotten is that the audience for which the explanation is intended could not possibly care less about the American civics lesson we labor in vain to impart.

Since the rest of us are reasonably familiar with the rationales for First Amendment freedoms, that doesn't leave too many constituents for the formal official government statements to impress.

One might wonder why we even go to the trouble of making the attempt.
 
The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution establishes both the law and tradition of governmental tolerance for the most offensively extreme ideas and speech. Ideas and speech so far outside the mainstream of civilized thought as to perhaps be held by a minority of one.

Any attempt to explain this government-to-citizen relationship phenomena to those who might not understand it is likely to focus on one of two stark truths -- either the implied value of the governmental and societal "tolerance" or the degree to which the offensive speech departs from the "civilized mainstream."

Emphasizing either of these truths does not imply that the apologist has forgotten the other egalitarian principle even if frequent repetition of a given explanation would suggest otherwise.

What does seem to frequently be forgotten is that the audience for which the explanation is intended could not possibly care less about the American civics lesson we labor in vain to impart.

Since the rest of us are reasonably familiar with the rationales for First Amendment freedoms, that doesn't leave too many constituents for the formal official government statements to impress.

One might wonder why we even go to the trouble of making the attempt.

*pounce*

Nothing much to add, except that I know why we try to impart it. It's akin to why the caged bird sings.

Grateful in Graceland,
Ellie
 
Back
Top