Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Jul 24, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Samium Gromoff wrote:

> > > My biggest objections to Pierce are that:
> > >
> > >         a) He's mostly very boring.
> >
> >   Yeah, my natural writing style tends to satire, but that isn't very
> > useful for debate.
> >
> >   I could have responded with your original post:
> >
> >   "Yeah, Bush wants to be able to delay the election so that if he's
> > going to lose, he can delay the election a week, piss everyone off at
> > having to go to the voting place twice, and _really_ lose the
> > election. Good plan, W!"
> >
> >  That would have been more entertaining I suppose.
>
> Now didn`t you really got what Tom has meaned to say?
>
> I guess that humans gather fun not only through perceiving satire,
> but rather also by perceiving the product of thinking in a broader
> sense. And it seems that Tom` message was to convey the lack of
> the fun in a broader sense.
>
> The question is why did you neglect such an explanation?

 When I first read Tom's post, my reaction was that it was just more
paranoid ravings from Tom, because he's not in a good place right now.

 Out of respect for Tom, I decided to ignore it.

 Quite frankly, I thought the other responses he got were rude. The fact
that he launched into a serious discussion of the tinfoil hat remark 
kind
of leads me to believe that he prefers being ridiculed to being ignored,
which I find strange, but I guess that I can work with. It could be a 
lot
of fun for me:

 "Gee, I have a whole bunch of patches to integrate to produce a stable
release. You know, what I really need to do is invent an entirely new
language. I really miss RPN now that HP doesn't use them on their
calculators anymore, so it should use that."

 Pierce

 P.S.

  Pierce's Obligatory Foreign Affairs plug: These are interesting, 
expert,
non-US viewpoints of the candidates (one of them is the ex-prime 
minister
of Sweden).

 http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/views_brief.php

 My take:

   They all agree on a couple of points:

     Bush has been a PR disaster for the US, though they expect Kerry to
do the same things, just with a spoonful of sugar. Reading their 
opinions
I kind of realized that Bush has made a practice of talking tough as a
strategy to reassure the populace in the wake of 9/11.

     Kerry is mostly an unknown, but they worry about his protectionist
noises early in the campaign being bad for the world economy.