aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Is USA really a democracy ? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

Is USA really a democracy ?

Ta Ri Ki Sun
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 442
having never been to the country i'll be the last to say it is or it is not, regardless of what i read or see on the news, i'm just wondering tho, so maybe some americans or better yet, non-americans living in america can perhaps shed some light.
heres a quote from another forum, this just happened to the guys sister living there, i'll post the link if requested.
Have heard from my folks that my baby sister was arrested yesterday for being involved in anti-war protests on campus! It was apparently just a peaceful banner waving protest which was bust up by over zealous red neck cops.
That is all well and good (heaven knows my folks got enough experience of this with me), but she is now being threatened with deportation if she continues her "anti patriotic stance"!!! She is a green card carrying permanent resident for *&@&@^ sakes!
This is not the behaviour of a "democracy" - but that of a facist police state!!!
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
What exactly does "being involved" mean? Did she refuse to leave private property? Did she hit a policemen? You are hearing exactly half of a story third hand. What was the person's name? What school? When was the protest? Did you think that maybe the whole thing is inaccurately reported? :roll:


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Ta Ri Ki Sun
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 442
i didn't draw any conclusions based on "half of a third hand story", i was merely wondering, and have been for a while, that example is one of many that lead me wondering.
btw, heres a letter that proves some people speak rather freely with little fear they'll be targetted for being "unpatriotic", assuming this is the authors real name and he's of sane mind , even tho he's not so accurate in point number one, cosidering there might be more than 5 people on this board alone "passionate about killing iraqi's"

Monday, March 17, 2003
A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.
3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!
6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.
Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!
But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!
Yours,
Michael Moore

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stop beating around the bush, beat the bush, and when you're done beat his daddy as well
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

as for answers to your questions, i'm waiting for some more third hand stuff, soon as he replies i'll be sure to post it
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
To answer your direct question no, the United States is not a democracy. It was never intended to be. The United States is a Republic. The framers of the U.S. Constitution worked very carefully to avoid becoming a democracy because they understood that majority rule is not very different from mob rule.


Matthew Phillips
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
You know, even if that report is true just the way that it stands, I have to say that I sort of agree with the handling.
A person in my country with a Green Card is a guest in my home. Even if they are residing with me for a long time.
While I might allow my children to get away with some outrageous behavior and work with them to come to an understanding of what we will allow and what we will get angry over, I certainly would not have the SAME set of limits on guests.
If a guest started making my life difficult I would ask them to leave, even if they are doing nothing worse than my children are doing. And I certainly would NOT appreciate input from a guest on how I run my own house - talk about RUDE. :roll: What in the world would make someone think that that was acceptable??


"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
Cindy,
Just because you take that report is true just the way as it stands:
You go to fight with a person and your guest says to you, "Don't fight with him. It's not good for you (us)", will you kick your guest out of your way?
Ofcourse you have the right and power, but is it the right thing to do?


Mani
Quaerendo Invenietis
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Umm... Michael Moore wrote that one letter. Enough said on that one, imho.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Taariq Levack:
cosidering there might be more than 5 people on this board alone "passionate about killing iraqi's"

That you believe anybody here is "passionate about killing Iraqis" only goes to illustrate that you neither understand Americans, nor do you understand this conflict.
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
Originally posted by R Manivannan:
Cindy,
Just because you take that report is true just the way as it stands:
You go to fight with a person and your guest says to you, "Don't fight with him. It's not good for you (us)", will you kick your guest out of your way?
Ofcourse you have the right and power, but is it the right thing to do?

If he says his opinion politely, I will listen politely. When he starts staging a protest - (even a peaceful protest) in my kitchen and will ask him to get out. Well, I would probably give him one warning first. That is just about what was described.
Rick Portugal
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 243
It was apparently just a peaceful banner waving protest which was bust up by over zealous red neck cops.

Sure it was. If they were just peacefully waving banners how did the protest come to the attention of the police?
It doesn't make much sense to travel to another country and then protest against that country.
Ta Ri Ki Sun
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 442
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:

If he says his opinion politely, I will listen politely. When he starts staging a protest - (even a peaceful protest) in my kitchen and will ask him to get out. Well, I would probably give him one warning first. That is just about what was described.


i must be well mistaken then, cos i thought this green card is now permanent residence, meaning said guest is no longer a guest, and is entitled to all of your rights except voting, and this is turn means you cannot kick them out or revoke their rights, except for under 2 circumstances, for committing serious crime or leaving the country for 12 months without reason, and neither of these have anything to do with said peaceful protest
Ta Ri Ki Sun
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 442
and speaking of guests in america, from the little i know about that country americans themselves are mostly guests there as well, albeit very legally, its only cos some peeople played "cowboys and indians", and now its time for cowboys and muslims because american horsepower demands more oil.
flame away if you will
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Read it again... this is a story from a guy who heard from someone else that another person is being "threatened" with deportatation!!! Are we far enough away from the actual story that we can consider this whole thing meaningless? Who threatened this person? Was it the cop who arrested her? Was it her imagination? Was she telling a story to her parents so they wouldn't be mad at her? Who knows!!! :roll:
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Taariq - Cindy's example said "When he starts staging a protest - (even a peaceful protest) in my kitchen". That was a figure of speach, as few protests are actually in someone's kitchen - but many are on private property of some sort. If the protest is on private property, the owner of the property has the right to require that the protester (or any other person) leave, if the owner doesn't want them there. If they don't leave, they can be arrested. Citizen or no. And when Cindy said "ask him to get out", she meant ask him to get out of her kitchen , not ask him to get out of the country.
Regarding the original question about the protesting student - as others have said, it's hard to say based on the information we have. It's possible they were indeed victims of "redneck cops" to some extent; that does sometimes happen, unfortunately. But you should also know that many protests (nonviolent ones) are conducted in a way to attempt to force the protesters' arrest as a means of gaining attention and/or sympathy. The protesters expect and intend to force their own arrest. E.g. the protesters pick some law and willfully violate it - like entering private property, disrupting whatever work the owner of the property is trying to do, and refusing to leave when the property owner demands it. The owner then must get the police to remove the protesters, when leads to their arrest. The arrest (a) gains attention and some sympathy for the protesters, from people who say "but they were just peacefully protesting" (ignoring the trespassing on private property, and (b) further disrupts the operation of the police department, who may not have the resources to arrest and incarcerate all the protesters. This is often the expected goal of protests like this. We don't know it it was the case here - but it's certainly possible.
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:

If he says his opinion politely, I will listen politely. When he starts staging a protest - (even a peaceful protest) in my kitchen and will ask him to get out. Well, I would probably give him one warning first. That is just about what was described.

When few people discuss something, things can be said politely. But how to tell things politely to a government? Meet Mr. Bush personally and tell him politely to listen to what you say?
I feel a peaceful protest is the most polite way to convey something to the government. Isn't it?
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Umm... Michael Moore wrote that one letter. Enough said on that one, imho.

I am actually a big fan of Michael Moore, despite what some may say are his shrill rantings, he is very courageous and willing to put everything on the line and speak the truth. That is a rare commodity these days and i respect him for that
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by shay Aluko:

I am actually a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, despite what some may say are his shrill rantings, he is very courageous and willing to put everything on the line and speak the truth. That is a rare commodity these days and i respect him for that

Now what do you think.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

All right, so let's break this particular piece of information down:
Have heard from my folks that my baby sister was arrested yesterday for being involved in anti-war protests on campus! It was apparently just a peaceful banner waving protest which was bust up by over zealous red neck cops.
That is all well and good (heaven knows my folks got enough experience of this with me), but she is now being threatened with deportation if she continues her "anti patriotic stance"!!! She is a green card carrying permanent resident for *&@&@^ sakes!
This is not the behaviour of a "democracy" - but that of a facist police state!!!

Characterizations:
baby sister -- an obvious ploy for sympathy
peaceful banner waving protest -- here's the thing, freedom of expression is not an unfettered right that covers spontaneous or poorly-organized acts. A protest must be legal by rule of law, not by some sense of moral prerogative, and not by implying that nothing could have gone wrong.
over zealous red neck cops -- so they are eager to quash protests and they are bigots? Is it banner-waving or baby sisters these cops resent?
threatened with deportation -- it's amazing to me how poorly foreign nationals understand their rights in the country. Overzealous cops, even red-necked ones, can't deport anyone for any reason. The INS does that, and if a baby sister would read up on the legal restrictions of her status, she'd know that. It's no threat to democracy if a person is ignorant of their rights, and certainly no threat if other people try to exploit that ignorance. That's life in any government.
behavior of a fascist police state -- isn't this just a little dramatic? Try protesting Saddam Hussein in the streets of Baghdad, then compare notes with this experience. I'm sure there will be a difference.


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
I am actually a big fan of Michael Moore, despite what some may say are his shrill rantings, he is very courageous and willing to put everything on the line and speak the truth. That is a rare commodity these days and i respect him for that

Maybe not so courageous and willing to put everything on the line....
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56524,00.html
http://www.rachellucas.com/archives/000165.html
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
Originally posted by R Manivannan:
I feel a peaceful protest is the most polite way to convey something to the government. Isn't it?

Well, I suppose that that is a matter of opinion. I would think that it is not appropritate. I do not know what the current regulations for what Green Card holders is, however, whatever THAT is what the US government has decided is the polite thing to do.
If the regulations state that Green Card holders can not participate in political demonstrations - then that is essentially telling the guest that his opinion is not desired.
Being a guest does NOT entitle you to voice your opinion - whether the host wants to hear it or not. That right is reserved for members of the family.
You are a guest until you are adopted into the family. In the US that means when you become a naturalized citizen. Until then you are expected to behave as a guest.
In fact I would be very suprised if anyone hassled a person who was ONLY participating in a legal peaceful demonstration. How the heck would they even KNOW that the person was not a citizen. Therefore I would have to believe that the person or group really DID something additional to get in trouble and after the fact it was found that one of them was not a citizen.
In which case I STILL agree with the handling. If you break the rules you get deported.
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:

If the regulations state that Green Card holders can not participate in political demonstrations - then that is essentially telling the guest that his opinion is not desired.


Even I don't have any idea about the DOs & DON'Ts of a GC holder. If there is any such regulation on them they deserve the punishment.


You are a guest until you are adopted into the family. In the US that means when you become a naturalized citizen. Until then you are expected to behave as a guest.

I think the better equation would be,
US = Home
US Citizens = Family memebers
Green Card holders = Adopted members.
Tourists / H1-B visa holders = Guests
You definitely give more rights to GC holders than others. Don't you?


In fact I would be very suprised if anyone hassled a person who was ONLY participating in a legal peaceful demonstration.

Even I don't believe in that incident. That's the reason I wrote the first line of my first post in this thread.
John Lee
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 05, 2001
Posts: 2545
Originally posted by R Manivannan:

I think the better equation would be,
US = Home
US Citizens = Family memebers
Green Card holders = Adopted members.
Tourists / H1-B visa holders = Guests

Instrumental!
Just curious: where will Java or software or engineering fits in this picture? :roll:
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
Originally posted by R Manivannan:

I think the better equation would be,
US = Home
US Citizens = Family memebers
Green Card holders = Adopted members.
Tourists / H1-B visa holders = Guests

You may WISH that that was the way that it is, but it simply is not true.
When you are adopted you become a Family Member with the EXACT same rules as relationship as the rest of the members. Once adopted you are in forever.
Green Card holders have all sorts of reasons that they can get deported. Let one of them try robbing a bank or murdering a neighbor and see how long that he keeps his Green Card :roll: . Green Card holders are more like "Family Member wannabes". But there is still that 5 year trial period where either side can back out. That is why we even HAVE a naturalization process. To let every one know that at THAT point you are Family.
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Cindy Glass ]
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Better:
US = Home
Native-born US citizens = biological family members
Naturalized US citizens = adopted family members
Green card holders = prospective adoptees / long-term guests
Tourists / H1-B visa holders = guests
The analogy is weakest for green card holders, because the naturalization process takes a long time, and taking this much time is unacceptable for adoption. You can't have a kid wait 5 years or whatever before he's officially part of the family - he needs a real family ASAP. But otherwise this is good. There should be no significant difference between how a naturalized citzen is treated and how a born citizen is treated, nor between a biological child and an adopted child. The only difference is how they got there.
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
There is one difference between a naturalized citizen and a born-in-the-US citizen. A naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked if it is determined that their citizenship was gained under false pretenses. An example would be an SS concentration camp guard who came here pretending to have been just a worker in a factory.
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
A person in my country with a Green Card is a guest in my home. Even if they are residing with me for a long time.

I don't think calling GC/H1 holders as guest is fully correct. "Paying guest" would be more appropriate. You ( by you, I mean, your govenrment/industry or your whoever makes the rules) "sold/rented" a part of your house in return for some benefits. It goes without saying that paying guests have a right to protest about things that affects them. And the host has an obligation to provide what was promised at the time of sale!
Having said that I still think that such people do not really have a right to protest on matters such as national security etc. It's none of their business.


I'm just saying...it's right there!
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by: Jason Menard
That you believe anybody here is "passionate about killing Iraqis" only goes to illustrate that you neither understand Americans, nor do you understand this conflict.

Jason,
Although you (and I) tend to have a much different point of view than Taariq Levack, as you are busy pointing out here, I�m still willing to hear this point of view in good discord. Your personal attack on Taariq�s "understanding" is both insulting and unfair. Please refrain from personal attacks in these threads. I point you to the words of Paul Wheaton for guidance on what is acceptable correspondence herein.
Rules for JavaRanch
AmericanEagle
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
???
1. That was not a personal attack.
2. It also came before Paul ever posted.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:
I do find it strange still that Jason decided that I was mean and unfair to Map, when in fact I was not, even before Map decided if I was. This reminds me of the French deciding the wording of our second reloution was acceptable or not even before Iraq made their own decidion. Stop trying to be dictators in here, and celebrate what the military members of this forumn have faught for, your freedom to express your own ideas.
AmericanEagle


[ March 21, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Green card holder is a paying guest? How much did they pay for the green card?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:
I point you to the words of Paul Wheaton for guidance on what is acceptable correspondence herein.
Rules for JavaRanch
AmericanEagle

"This is not the place to say that any person on JavaRanch is anything less than perfect. If you want to bitch about a bartender or sheriff, send me an e-mail."
Paul Wheaton. Rules for JavaRanch
[ March 21, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Marcus Green
arch rival
Rancher

Joined: Sep 14, 1999
Posts: 2813
Democracy is frequently in the eye of the beholder. For example, try this exerciese: Create a set of criteria that you consider to define a democracy (universal suffrage, free speach bla bla bla). Then choose a collection of nations. Go back in time over the last 100-200 years. At what point did those nations become a democracy. Was the UK a democracy in 1800, 1850,1900. Was the US a democracy in 1850,1900,1920, Nicaragua in 1990.

Whilst the US like all human endevors is fallible it seems to set a very good example of valuing free speach.


SCWCD: Online Course, 50,000+ words and 200+ questions
http://www.examulator.com/moodle/course/view.php?id=5&topic=all
Aniruddha Mukhopadhyay
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 59
I feel a country is "Democratic" if the government is in some way elected by vote of people of the country.
Free speech, Laws which are "fair" etc all help, but cannot be essential conditions for a country to be called Democratic. So USA is a democratic country. As also UK, India, Australia etc. For UK and Australia part of the government is hereditary / nominee of hereditary (from another country!) - but power resides with the elected representatives so definitely "democratic" country.
Only other condition which can be put is that elections are "fair" - not 99.9% vote for a certain president!
My definition of "democracy" - would like know what others feel.


Aniruddha
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
The USA originally began as a Confederation under the guidance of the original Constitution. In 1788 the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. These papers set the stage to transform the fledling country from a Confederacy to a Republic. The USA has been a Republic ever since; Not a democracy.Federalist Papers
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Paul Stevens
???
1. That was not a personal attack.
2. It also came before Paul ever posted.

The following additional thread, by Paul Wheaton linked below should clarify the nature of this peronal attack. We would all do better to stick to the issues themselves, rather than the person writing about them. We'll just have a better more harmonious community if we follow Paul Wheaton's guidelines.

AmericanEagle
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Oops, here's the link.
Policy on Personal Attacks
AmericanEagle
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:
The following additional thread, by Paul Wheaton linked below should clarify the nature of this peronal attack. We would all do better to stick to the issues themselves, rather than the person writing about them. We'll just have a better more harmonious community if we follow Paul Wheaton's guidelines.

AmericanEagle

While I always appreciate a good dose of sermonizing, the fact is that there was no personal attack made. If the potentially aggrieved party somehow feels that I have wronged him (Taariq), I would be happy to discuss the matter with him by email or PM. And while I wholeheartedly agree that the discussions should try to stay focused on the topic and not individual posters, something about pots and black kettles might come to mind in some instances.
Additionally, if one has suggestions, comments, or questions concerning the JavaRanch community, then the place to post these is in the JavaRanch forum, not Meaningless Drivel. Any comments to me specifically may be sent via Private Message, if one is registered, or via email.
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by: Jason Menard
While I always appreciate a good dose of sermonizing, the fact is that there was no personal attack made�.

Paul Wheaton�s own words can illustrate the matter better than my own I�m afraid. Here are those words:
Three things to keep yourself from committing the horrible offense of a "personal attack":
1) Avoid the word "you". If the word "you" appears in your message, chances are that you are guilty of a personal attack.
2) Talk about the issue, not the person you are talking to.
3) Every person on JavaRanch is without flaw (except me). If your message hints to anything to the contrary, your message is a personal attack.
What Paul seems to be suggesting here is that if a message meets any of these three tests, then it could be deemed a personal attack. Since the statements in question, against Taariq Levack, meet all three tests, there can be no question that a personal attack was made. However, I also think that Paul�s words will guide us all to not challenge either of these three tests in future messages. If you disagree with what Paul wrote as his tests for whether or not a personal attack exists in a message, an email or private message can be sent to him explaining why one feels this way. My suggestion is let's just all get along.
AmericanEagle
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Whether Jason's remark that Taariq doesn't understand Americans constitutes a personal insult or not, it was made (and this was pointed out) before Paul introduced his new policy. Are we going to analyze all our old threads? Only those where Jason participated?
Unrelated question: whom will <AmericanEagle> accuse in hijacking the thread this time? :roll:
[ March 22, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
It was me and no other person that pointed out, or hijacked the thread if you will, the personal attack (that took place in this thread) against Taariq that violates the rules of the JavaRanch. Presumabely these rules existed as unwritten prior to 3/20 and they are now being written in stone by Paul Wheaton because they are not being followed, or are not understand, including by bartenders and sheriffs. I imagine that in an effort to keep to the guidelines posted by Paul Wheaton, that violations will be pointed out by all of us in the future, if these rules have any merit, which I believe they do.
Anyway, I pointed it out; It's done and over with, we would hope. As for violators to admit to a violation, like I just admitted to the above hijacking, precendence herein tells me that won't be happening. Let's not beat a dead cow, but just ensure it doesn't happen again, and all just get along.
AmericanEagle
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Is USA really a democracy ?