It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Mugabe Speech At UN Summit Draws Cheers

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
You have voted subz for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.




Suppose I should add something. Mugabe is not the nicest chap in the world, but any radical reform to correct years of colonial oppression is going to # a country to some extreme. At least he has the balls to define his policies and the true reasons behind them rather than fabricate 'intelligence' to convince people that what their goverment is doing is morally correct.




[edit on 17/10/05 by Strodyn]




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
And as such, when said comparison is made, the IQ of the topic drops 50+ points. Here's a thought: ATS is above such crap?

Might want to read something of worth that is enlightening within itself concerning such like type comparisons: Godwin's Law

How about abstain from such like comparisons for Godwin's sake, eh?


I suppose you classify that banal, overused cliche and whiny complaint as a contribution.

I made my point and evoked your focus, said the spider to the fly. Bush fits a fascist profile, now go read some Ludwig Von Mises

The Mindless American: A Tragedy In The Making

But even more shameful is the fact that there are people who seem not to care that such things are taking place in our country; a rather ignorant crowd of jingoes more comfortable choosing to sit back pretending that everything will be just fine, a people with apparently little regard for the facts. As a behavioral scientist, I am grieved at what appears to be a near pandemic of disinterest in what is happening to our country.

Just as Hitler in the 1930’s prepared his countrymen to accept the authoritarian control of the Nazi government, much the same may well be occurring in the United States. Just as Hitler indoctrinated his people to believe that Germany had the right to conquer the world, George Walker Bush “in the name of freedom and democracy” may well be doing the same (preparing the American people to support his administration’s imperialistic drive to dominate the world).




[edit on 17-10-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Which, by your numbers, would equal the following in aid*:

Denmark = 1,621,920,000
Norway = 1,409,100,000
Nether = 3,329,312,790
France = 5,211,000,000
U.S. = 17,625,000,000
*using the GDP estimates from the CIA world fact book and applying the percentages you cited

Thanks for doing that math for me



Originally posted by Hamburglar
Bit of a difference there, eh? And, before you yell at me about Bill Gates and a little kid, I grant you your point. I get what you are saying. And you are right that the intentions of these nations are admirable.

But, let’s also be fair and recognize that when a Jerry Lewis has his telethon, if ten people donate their hard-earned $5 bills, and one guy donates his daddy's $10 million, nobody cares about the $50. The point is that in the end, its absolute value, not proportion that really matters.

It might if you are materialistic but if you have a true concept of generosity you would realize that the amount given doesn't figure into it. Its the worth to you of what you give that is the true measure of generosity. Come on, you honestly can tell me that if a man gave his entire life savings of $30,000 to charity and Coca-Cola gave $1 million, you'd class Coca-Cola as more generous than this man? The amount given doesnt matter at all, its the value of it to you that really counts in generosity.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
In short, you can't feed a starving nation on good intentions, but you can on $17.6 billion in aid per year.

That's true, but then again I never said anything about good intentions. Im talking about how generous each country is with their aid money. $17.6 billion is alot of money, no one is disputing that. But when you compare it to the GDP of the United States it becomes a pittance.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
I've granted you yours, it might be time you grant this.

There is no quid pro quo here. If I believed what you wrote I would honestly say so, but I don't


Look at these figures (using your aid figures, thanks!)

The United States donates $59.60/person
Denmark donates $298.60/person
Norway donates $306.90/person
The Netherlands donates $202.90/person
France donates $85.91/person

Surely you can see that compared to the above figures, the United States doesn't contribute nearly as much of its wealth to aid as these other countries. If the United States matched Norway's generosity it would have to donate $90.76 billion per year. Now compare that to what the United States actually donates ($17.6 billion) and you can see where I am coming from.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
As for slavery...that's a narrow view. Even Public Enemy concedes that:

"King and chief prolly had a big beef,
Because of that now I grit my teeth"

How is it a narrow view? When I say the United States and Britain enslaved Africans, my not mentioning other countries does not equate to their non complicity in the matter. My point is valid and if you prove other nations were involved then kudos to you, but it doesn't absolve the United States and Britain of their past crimes against humanity in any way, shape or form.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
This comes in reference to the fact that vast numbers of Africans were complicitous in the slave trade and profiting nicely from it. And, to suggest somehow that North American slavery devastated Africa is to ignore that Egypt was built by slaves, Rome was built by slaves, and there is hardly a culture on the planet that didn't practice some form of slavery.

Again, that changes nothing. If you're highlighting these points for the benefit of those who didn't know, again, kudos. But I am well aware that it wasn't only the United States and Britain that enslaved Africans, I never said it was solely those two countries. I mention those two because a member took umbrage with Mugabe's speech and Mugabe was criticising Tony Blair (British) and George W. Bush (American). If Mugabe mentioned other African leaders holding Africa back or Berlusconi or Mubarak then I would probably of highlighted their countries complicity in this topic as well.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
Not saying it's right, just saying that when you call someone else a revisionist, you better check yourself out first.

I revised nothing, its impossible to describe every single contributing factor in history when discussing a topic such as this. I would never presume to as much, but that's not to say its revising the topic either. I revised nothing.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
I hope you don't take this as a flame, but as a fair point of discussion that you seem to have omitted.

Thanks,

Hambone

A flame? Compared to another persons posts on here yours was positively gushing
No, in all seriousness, I can fully see your point of view. I just do not agree with it and I hope my reply can show you at least why that is.

[edit on 17/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strodyn
You have voted subz for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thank you!


Originally posted by shots
Looks like he is just your kind of man Subz

Why do you say that, shots? I specifically said:


Originally posted by subz
I may despise Mugabe with a passion



Originally posted by subz
Mugabe is an evil moron


Was I not clear enough? Did I stutter?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Come on, you honestly can tell me that if a man gave his entire life savings of $30,000 to charity and Coca-Cola gave $1 million, you'd class Coca-Cola as more generous than this man? The amount given doesnt matter at all, its the value of it to you that really counts in generosity.


In answer to your example, no, I wouldn't say Coke is more generous. In fact, I don't think I'd question the generosity of either (which is, in truth, what you are suggesting we do here with the U.S.). I would be satisfied that they are both generous. I would not complain that Coke didn't do more. Nor would I say the poor man's contributions were somehow superior. That, in my opinion, is what ingrates do. I am better than that. (Not saying you are an ingrate.) Generosity is generosity. Either one is generous, or one is not. There really should not be a question of degree.

My materialism isn't really the point, either. What is the point is my realism. I recognize that $17 billion is a greater benefit to a country than $4 billion. And, I would certainly never call it a pittance (man, I'd love to make your salary if 17.6 billion is a pittance).

Again, this question of degree. We can all agree that $17.6 billion is a lot of money. We can further agree that it will help the nation that receives it (or whatever part of it). We can finally agree that the U.S., nor any other country, is obligated to provide this aid. Thus, it is generous. By all accounts. And, just as you might say the U.S. should give a higher percentage, someone else might say the Netherlands should take on more debt so it can give away an equivalent $17.6 billion dollars. But, I think both notions are foolhardy.


Originally posted by subz
There is no quid pro quo here. If I believed what you wrote I would honestly say so, but I don't


Alright, that's fair. But, I don't think you are being entirely honest (with yourself). It is understandable. This is a popular time to crap all over anything the U.S. does or did. And, while I'm not suggesting that this is what you are doing, I am suggesting that this climate (in some ways deserved) is influential, and makes it difficult to praise the U.S. for its virtues. Honestly, it makes it difficult for many to see them.


Originally posted by subz
Look at these figures (using your aid figures, thanks!)


I did, and I'm not impressed. Your point is well made. I just don't think it is valid. See above. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.


Originally posted by subz
How is it a narrow view? When I say the United States and Britain enslaved Africans, my not mentioning other countries does not equate to their non complicity in the matter. My point is valid and if you prove other nations were involved then kudos to you, but it doesn't absolve the United States and Britain of their past crimes against humanity in any way, shape or form.


Okay, but you also said

Originally posted by subz
If it weren't for colonialism and slavery (from the US and UK) these countries wouldn't be Third World countries still.


That is a fallacious statement at best. At worst, it is an outright lie. I'll assume you were not trying to deliberately deceive.

Now, before you just dash off a witty response (which many of us do here), here is what I mean...

Your not mentioning other countries in that statement ABSOLUTELY precludes their complicity. Your implication, nay, your downright assertion (and go ahead and argue that you didn't use those exact words; it is irrelevant, your meaning is crystal clear by your omissions) is that the U.S. and U.K. are SOLELY responsible for the state of affairs in Africa.

The problem is, that then negates the influence of every leader of Africa. Ever. It negates the fact that, by some estimates, Arab traders took more slaves than the Americas.

For example,

Between 1450 and 1850, at least 12 million Africans were shipped from Africa across the Atlantic Ocean


But,

Muslim traders exported as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, to the Middle East, and to North Africa.


Link (and the bold emphasis above is mine)

You negate the complicity of the Africans themselves.


many Africans were also complicit in this victimization. Precolonial empires such as Dahomey and Ashanti (located in what is now Benin and Ghana), where slave ports at Ouidah and Elmina flourished, accumulated enormous wealth and power as a result of the trade of their fellow Africans.

In fact, Europeans often acted as junior partners to African rulers, merchants, and middlemen in the slave trade along the West African coast from the mid-15th century on.

Another link. Again, emphasis mine.

It further ignores that for much of the cycle of the Atlantic slave trade, the U.S. didn't even exist. Instead, it was a group of colonies (some British, some Dutch, some Spanish, some French).

You also don't account for claims that slavery is still occurring in Africa, by Africans, upon their fellow Africans.

You ignore the impact that Barbary coast slavers had on Africa by importing European slaves.

Further, attributing the problems of Africa solely to slavery (and your statement is explicit, almost mathematical; English Slavery + U.S. Slavery = Africa as Third World) ignores years of drought; famine; civil war; war with neighboring countries; tribal war; dictators; French and Dutch colonialism; religious strife (primarily Christian and Muslim); internal greed, graft, bribery, embezzlement, and extortion; rampant disease; idiot governments refusing AIDS assistance, rigged elections, warlords, lack of products that can compete in any market (aside from diamonds and other raw materials that require cheap, extensive labor pools, but could not support a country).

In short, you ignore almost everything, and try to pin the problems of a continent onto two countries.

And, for the record, I'll not argue that the Atlantic slave trade didn't have some effect on Africa (specifically West Africa). I'll further not attempt to absolve the U.S. and U.K. (of 140 years ago) of their share of blame in this matter.

I'll also not stand aside and watch as fallacious arguments are used to assign culpability to the U.S. and U.K. for a ruthless dictator. Nor will I sit by and read another "U.S. and U.K. are responsible for every evil in the world" argument.

That argument doesn't work, and it absolves every other country for their roles in the misdeeds of the world.


Originally posted by subz
I mention those two because a member took umbrage with Mugabe's speech and Mugabe was criticising Tony Blair (British) and George W. Bush (American).


I have a hard time with this. I don't see how this guy's opinions are relevant at all, let alone in the context they were stated (at a U.N. food conference). Furthermore, just because he brought up the U.S. and the U.K., doesn't mean you have to then bring up questions of slavery and its effects. I find that to be an erroneous jump to an irrelevant topic.


Originally posted by subz
I revised nothing, its impossible to describe every single contributing factor in history when discussing a topic such as this. I would never presume to as much, but that's not to say its revising the topic either. I revised nothing.


So you say, but I believe omission is revision.


Originally posted by subz
A flame? Compared to another persons posts on here yours was positively gushing


Glad to see you are a good sport! I like to discuss with good sports. You often accomplish a lot more.

Finally, on a completely irrelevant note, it interests me that you, as a U.K.-born individual (by your admission and your spelling of “criticize”) don’t use the serial comma—specifically the final comma in a series, usually follow “and” (like, “1, 2, and 3”, whereas you write “1, 2 and 3” with no second comma).

I find it exceedingly strange in that the technical name of this comma is the Oxford comma (guess why). The Queen would be quite angry if I told her what you were doing. Tut tut.

Sorry for the long post.

Hammy

Edit to add quote attributions for clarity.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Hamburglar]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Might want to read something of worth that is enlightening within itself concerning such like type comparisons: Godwin's Law


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Those Nazi terms are getting worn out, maybe we need some new ones.

How about abstain from such like comparisons for Godwin's sake, eh?




You have voted Seekerof for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Nice read. Thanks for that.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The Bush-Fascism Meme

Fascism: Any program for setting up a centralized authcratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Those who cite "Godwin's Law" in order to silence opposition of anti-nazism are most likely in denial, ignorant of historical parallels, or actual parcipants in a fascist agenda. We can forgive Godwin for his stupidity since he wrote it in 1990, but not those who continue to use it. Ignoring historical precedents and evidence in favor of appearing like a "politically correct right wing zealot" equates to more group think devoid of commonsense and independent thought. Party-line sheeple and those that want to bring arguments against the current fascism meme, do not reflect coherent thought processes...they reflect parrots and automatons. Those that want to promote critical thinking ought to know when to call a spade a spade and abandone the PC group-think.


20 Characteristics Of A Fascist Political Party

The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party

The Problem of Fascism - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Business Under Nazis - Ralph R. Reiland



[edit on 18-10-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
In answer to your example, no, I wouldn't say Coke is more generous. In fact, I don't think I'd question the generosity of either (which is, in truth, what you are suggesting we do here with the U.S.). I would be satisfied that they are both generous. I would not complain that Coke didn't do more. Nor would I say the poor man's contributions were somehow superior. That, in my opinion, is what ingrates do. I am better than that. (Not saying you are an ingrate.) Generosity is generosity. Either one is generous, or one is not. There really should not be a question of degree.

I agree, but you've forgotten why this whole topic of generosity arose. It was Off_the_Street who raised the topic and tried to paint the United States as THE MOST generous country on the planet. I think i've shown why I think that statement is fallacious and I wouldnt of even brought the topic up if it was not to reply to his post. My intention was not to dismiss the contributions the United States gives to international aid.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
My materialism isn't really the point, either. What is the point is my realism. I recognize that $17 billion is a greater benefit to a country than $4 billion. And, I would certainly never call it a pittance (man, I'd love to make your salary if 17.6 billion is a pittance).

Again that is true but that wasnt what I was saying either. If a country the size of Denmark gives a billion dollars and the United States with an economy many magnitudes greater than it donates 17 billion it does not mean they are more generous because of it. I think we've done that topic to death now, can we leave it now?


Originally posted by Hamburglar
Alright, that's fair. But, I don't think you are being entirely honest (with yourself). It is understandable. This is a popular time to crap all over anything the U.S. does or did. And, while I'm not suggesting that this is what you are doing, I am suggesting that this climate (in some ways deserved) is influential, and makes it difficult to praise the U.S. for its virtues. Honestly, it makes it difficult for many to see them.

Please give me a bit of credit, im not a groupie bashing the United States because its fashionable. I raise issues and questions about many other topics and countries when I see them. Ive been critical of Britain, Australia, China, Israel many others. Come on, dont try to fob me off as some kind of Michael Moore groupie.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
Okay, but you also said

Originally posted by subz
If it weren't for colonialism and slavery (from the US and UK) these countries wouldn't be Third World countries still.


That is a fallacious statement at best. At worst, it is an outright lie. I'll assume you were not trying to deliberately deceive.

How is it a lie? Its all hypothetical but it certainly isnt a lie. It can be argued that if Africa was not enslaved or colonized then either Britain wouldnt of gone through the industrial revolution as early as it did. Or that Africa might of had the wealth and integrity of government enough to join in the industrial revolution.

There is no way you can say that I am lying, its all hypothetical because its already happend and you cant change that.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
Your not mentioning other countries in that statement ABSOLUTELY precludes their complicity. Your implication, nay, your downright assertion (and go ahead and argue that you didn't use those exact words; it is irrelevant, your meaning is crystal clear by your omissions) is that the U.S. and U.K. are SOLELY responsible for the state of affairs in Africa.

How does it? With your logic if you said something like "China is a human rights abuser", you would then have to continue to explain whether the other 191 countries in the World are a human rights abusers too. If you didnt discuss every other of the 191 countries in the World then your omission automatically precludes them from being human rights abusers. Dont you see how unreasonable a position it is that you've taken there?


Originally posted by Hamburglar
You also don't account for claims that slavery is still occurring in Africa, by Africans, upon their fellow Africans.

Im arguing that its because the continent had been destabilized for so many centuries that they have no chance of correcting their course without our assistance. Thats not discounting anything the African's themselves are doing in the slighest. We helped destabilize and pillage that continent and the West did not leave the continent as it found it when it left. Ok?


Originally posted by Hamburglar
You ignore the impact that Barbary coast slavers had on Africa by importing European slaves.

No im not! The topic of this thread that I authoured is about what Mugabe said. He wasnt talking about the Barbary coast slavers. The clear scope of this topic is the validity or not of Mugabe's criticism of Britain and the United States!


Originally posted by Hamburglar
Further, attributing the problems of Africa solely to slavery (and your statement is explicit, almost mathematical; English Slavery + U.S. Slavery = Africa as Third World) ignores years of drought; famine; civil war; war with neighboring countries; tribal war; dictators; French and Dutch colonialism; religious strife (primarily Christian and Muslim); internal greed, graft, bribery, embezzlement, and extortion; rampant disease; idiot governments refusing AIDS assistance, rigged elections, warlords, lack of products that can compete in any market (aside from diamonds and other raw materials that require cheap, extensive labor pools, but could not support a country).

Im not ignorant to those reasons for crying out loud. But if the country was destablized prior to those events happening then it has a reduced chance of dealing with them. Thats the way I see it. We contributed greatly to the destablization and theft of their resources so we left them ill equiped to cope with any other adversities that befell them in the decades after the slave traders and colonials left.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
In short, you ignore almost everything, and try to pin the problems of a continent onto two countries.

For christ sake im not ignoring that! Im just incable of discussing EVERY SINGLE twist and turn of history in such a complicated and diverse subject. Your logic of 'omission is ignorance' is rubbish! If I explicitly contradicted what you've written then you might have a point, but I never did.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
And, for the record, I'll not argue that the Atlantic slave trade didn't have some effect on Africa (specifically West Africa). I'll further not attempt to absolve the U.S. and U.K. (of 140 years ago) of their share of blame in this matter.

Well gee, that was my whole bloody point. Hence when Mugabe says things critical of the United States or Britain he has a point!


Originally posted by Hamburglar
I'll also not stand aside and watch as fallacious arguments are used to assign culpability to the U.S. and U.K. for a ruthless dictator. Nor will I sit by and read another "U.S. and U.K. are responsible for every evil in the world" argument.

Bah, must we go round in this circle? They contributed to the ills of Africa, ok? I never said they were solely responsible for everything wrong in Africa today or the World for the matter, ok?


Originally posted by Hamburglar
That argument doesn't work, and it absolves every other country for their roles in the misdeeds of the world.

Rubbish! If you read that into my posts then you misunderstood them completely. The scope of this thread is clearly visible and Ive stuck on topic and you have taken that as absolution of every other nation. Get real, thats not what I meant at all.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
I have a hard time with this. I don't see how this guy's opinions are relevant at all, let alone in the context they were stated (at a U.N. food conference). Furthermore, just because he brought up the U.S. and the U.K., doesn't mean you have to then bring up questions of slavery and its effects. I find that to be an erroneous jump to an irrelevant topic.

It all reverts back to Off_the_Streets original post where he heaps every single ill in Africa on the Africans. Do you accept that viewpoint? I do not. I provided my rationale behind why that was not accurate. Ok?


Originally posted by Hamburglar
So you say, but I believe omission is revision.

Sorry but your using faulty reasoning and logic. Theres nothing I can do about that.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
Glad to see you are a good sport! I like to discuss with good sports. You often accomplish a lot more.

I agree.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
Finally, on a completely irrelevant note, it interests me that you, as a U.K.-born individual (by your admission and your spelling of “criticize”) don’t use the serial comma—specifically the final comma in a series, usually follow “and” (like, “1, 2, and 3”, whereas you write “1, 2 and 3” with no second comma).

I was born in Britain but went through school in Australia. I never recall being taught to put the comma before "and" in a series. Its quite possible that Australia has taken this from the United States as Australia is a hybrid of the United States and Britain in all manner of things, including punctuation.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
I find it exceedingly strange in that the technical name of this comma is the Oxford comma (guess why). The Queen would be quite angry if I told her what you were doing. Tut tut.

Hmm, if the Queen was angered by my errant punctuation I would deliberately leave out all manner of symbols


[edit on 19/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Finally, on a completely irrelevant note, it interests me that you, as a U.K.-born individual (by your admission and your spelling of “criticize”) don’t use the serial comma—specifically the final comma in a series, usually follow “and” (like, “1, 2, and 3”, whereas you write “1, 2 and 3” with no second comma).

Originally posted by Subz
I was born in Britain but went through school in Australia. I never recall being taught to put the comma before "and" in a series. Its quite possible that Australia has taken this from the United States as Australia is a hybrid of the United States and Britain in all manner of things, including punctuation.


I'm not 100% sure where or when you went to School, Hamburglar, however I study English at College right now and we get marked down if we place a comma the way you do.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Hamburglar wrote:
Finally, on a completely irrelevant note, it interests me that you, as a U.K.-born individual (by your admission and your spelling of “criticize”) don’t use the serial comma—specifically the final comma in a series, usually follow “and” (like, “1, 2, and 3”, whereas you write “1, 2 and 3” with no second comma).

I find it exceedingly strange in that the technical name of this comma is the Oxford comma (guess why). The Queen would be quite angry if I told her what you were doing. Tut tut.


WTF is that?! Is this what ATSNN discussion has become?


[edit on 2005-10-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Finally, on a completely irrelevant note, it interests me that you, as a U.K.-born individual (by your admission and your spelling of “criticize”) don’t use the serial comma—specifically the final comma in a series, usually follow “and” (like, “1, 2, and 3”, whereas you write “1, 2 and 3” with no second comma).


He brought coffee, sandwiches, soup, and crackers.
This last comma is optional.
en.wikipedia.org...


No soup for you!

Maybe the deeper irony here is, how a thread about fascism can evoke grammar nazis.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Its not meant to be about fascism
Or grammar for that matter



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Can we get back to the topic please.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Finally, on a completely irrelevant note, it interests me that you, as a U.K.-born individual (by your admission and your spelling of “criticize”) don’t use the serial comma—specifically the final comma in a series, usually follow “and” (like, “1, 2, and 3”, whereas you write “1, 2 and 3” with no second comma).


I'm not 100% sure where or when you went to School, Hamburglar, however I study English at College right now and we get marked down if we place a comma the way you do.


I have a degree in it Odium. I write for a living. I'm good at my job.

That said, the final serial comma, or "Oxford" comma is used by certain style manuals, not by others.

The problem with this, is that the major style manuals taught in most colleges (AP & Chicago) are for Press writing. This is silly, because most of us don't write for the local news. The Press style guides don't use it. Primarily this is to conserve space (you'll notice that most papers use commas instead of the word "and" in headlines; like, "Bush, Blair set to blow up world).

But, again, normal people don't write for the Press, so it makes no sense to teach people this way. Other style manuals use it (like the GPO Style Manual).

Having written both inside and outside of the Press (for money, thank you), I can tell you that the Press rarely uses it. It is similar in college. Some professors insist you use it, some don't. I would suggest taking another 20 or so English courses, then comparing how many contradictory markings you get on your papers.


By the way, University of Maryland at College Park. Graduated December, 2001.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

WTF is that?! Is this what ATSNN discussion has become?


[edit on 2005-10-19 by wecomeinpeace]


Then write something worth discussing. Maybe you can call me a Nazi too, just like Regenmacher? That would be fun.

Second, I was addressing a specific individual, not you. You don't like it, don't read it, and certainly don't foster it by commenting on it.

Finally, that was like 1/10 of my post. The rest was ALL ABOUT what has been discussed for 2 pages. Pay attention man.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Topic please



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
can we leave it now?

Yes, let's.


Originally posted by subz
Please give me a bit of credit, im not a groupie bashing the United States because its fashionable.

As I noted before, I'm just suggesting that it is easy to cast the U.S. and U.K. in a harsh light right now, rather than give them credit where it is due. I think, given your later statements about colonialism, slavery, etc., that you do have a certain slant to your viewpoint regarding the U.S. and U.K. I don’t think you are a groupie. Sorry for the suggestion.


Originally posted by subz
With your logic if you said something like "China is a human rights abuser", you would then have to continue to explain whether the other 191 countries in the World are a human rights abusers too. If you didnt discuss every other of the 191 countries in the World then your omission automatically precludes them from being human rights abusers. Dont you see how unreasonable a position it is that you've taken there?


No, that example would only work if you wrote, “The world wouldn’t have human rights abuse if it weren’t for China.” That is a limiting statement (limits the causes of global human rights abuse to one place, China), and is much closer to your original statement than your recent example.

As a reminder, you wrote

Originally posted by subz
If it weren't for colonialism and slavery (from the US and UK) these countries wouldn't be Third World countries still.

That specifically limits the culpability for these countries’ third world realities to the effects of slavery and colonialism, FROM THE U.S. AND U.K.

I’m sorry, but, that is the ONLY logical result of your statement. If you misspoke (or miswrote, I guess), then by all means, clarify your statement. If, instead, you stand by your words, embrace them for their only possible meaning.

Also, I don’t believe that the continent had been destabilized for so many centuries that they have had no chance to correct their course. Correct me if I’m wrong, but slave traders did not go very far inland. They stuck to the coasts. That leaves the majority of the continent untouched. That means that all of the self-perpetuated slavery in central Africa is to be blamed on Africans, not outside influences. And, even if you make the case that these Africans brought captured people to the coasts and sold them because a market existed, you cannot use Western influence to explain why they still practice slavery when an outside market for slaves no longer exists. They do it for simple economic reasons. Because it profits them.

And, sorry, but we didn’t introduce the concept either.


Originally posted by subz
The topic of this thread that I authoured is about what Mugabe said. He wasnt talking about the Barbary coast slavers. The clear scope of this topic is the validity or not of Mugabe's criticism of Britain and the United States!


And I think it is fair to say that because he ignores everything else (including himself), his opinion is revisionist as well. There is nothing wrong with me pointing that out, and there is also nothing wrong with me suggesting that his statement lacks validity because even at a basic level it is silly and certainly revisionist.


Originally posted by subz
Bah, must we go round in this circle? They contributed to the ills of Africa, ok? I never said they were solely responsible for everything wrong in Africa today or the World for the matter, ok?


You did, but we’ll let it go if you want.


Originally posted by subz
It all reverts back to Off_the_Streets original post where he heaps every single ill in Africa on the Africans. Do you accept that viewpoint? I do not. I provided my rationale behind why that was not accurate. Ok?


Fair enough. No, I don’t accept that viewpoint either. As I noted the first time, my intent was not to flame. Rather, I prefer to see a “clean” discussion. I felt that you had “glossed over” some very relevant facts, and I thought it was worth mentioning.


Originally posted by Hamburglar
So you say, but I believe omission is revision.


Originally posted by subz
Sorry but your using faulty reasoning and logic. Theres nothing I can do about that.


Certainly not. Here is an example of how omission constitutes revision:

WWII was started because Hitler hated Jews.

I think we can agree that the statement above leaves out MYRIAD important factors, and attempts to revise historical fact. It is no different than saying that the U.S. and U.K. are solely (even chiefly) responsible for the plight of Africans today. I think I’ve sufficiently proved my point. If we disagree, so be it. Let’s not go back and forth anymore about it.


Originally posted by subz
Hmm, if the Queen was angered by my errant punctuation I would deliberately leave out all manner of symbols


Har! And it is not necessarily errant. Just a convention that some use and some do not.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join