[Davros]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: The criticism of the article seemed to be spread fairly evenly, Davros. I didn't see that it concentrated on France in any one particular area. Since you cheekily replied to MagiK in another thread that you could not accurately comment on his motives, I find it odd that you feel you can do so now. As for the article itself, I didn't see that it was "bashing" a country any more than any of several articles that have been referenced or linked to on C.E. criticizing President Bush and/or American policies. And it was certainly as "even-handed" as the article used by your partner-in-pastry, Good Sir Donut, as a reference source for this thread. You have every right to voice your opinions and/or criticisms of Bush and/or American policies & practices. But don't cry "FOUL" when you find the spotlight is then turned towards the other side of the pond.

Well you have shocked me again - that was quite a one sided view by your standards Cerek. I posted a question and the question is valid, has not been answered and (I note) not been contested either.

You have read the linked article yourself and find the NRO article fair and even do you? Interesting.

Foul and ponds huh - not sure where you were heading with this one but let's explore this theory. I see nothing in the TOE about expressing opinions on politicians or policy, and I think that fair and equable people are quite capable of pursuing those lines without country bashing. It might surprise you to know that I have very few problems with the Dubbya man. The economics are acceptable, the protectionist policies are (mostly) understandable (in moderation), Iraq was a [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] . The proplems that I have are elements of the strategies of environmental management, unilateralism, isolationism and (the the one that I hold the most contempt for) "Euro bashing". I think it possible to support the party and most of the policies while still being critical of what I don't like. If you vote (or support) a guy it is true that you get his good policies and his crap ones. I don't believe though that people have to take the "oh well, we must take the good with the bad" attitude and if a policy smells then one should open one's mouth.

The TOE does however deal with country bashing, and the article reeks of it. You could sit back and say for example that the way that the article expresses itself on the French people that died in last years heat wave was just a presentation of factual data. Well perhaps it is - if one's mind is totally closed to the writer and his intent. Perhaps it was just tastelessly presented - hmmm? The size of the tragedy (in human terms) was 10 times bigger than the tragedy of 9/11 but I would expect (and would myself demand) that there would be hell to pay if anyone made comments with the same deliberate insensitivity. There are enough digs in the article to suggest that it was the WRITERS INTENT to put things in "Francophobe Fashion" or is that now called "Freedom Prose". Fair and even? ROFLOLWP.

Hopping to something else now - Cheekily? You are ascribing motives to my written words now? That's a tad judgmental my dear fellow. You could at least add "honestly" and "diplomatically" to your judgmental "cheekily". I like banter as much as the next man, but there was a bigger picture that you weren't acknowledging there. As to me "ascribing motives" in my post on this thread, you will need to point out where I did that. I made a factual statement regarding a history. A history of sniping directed at a particular country - do you honestly believe there aren't a number of posts over a number of months that could be said to substantiate that?

LOL - hey Donut - apparently I am a "partner in pastry" now. Please let me know what all the best dressed pastries are wearing this summer, and what the standard wage of a top class pastry is. Gee - I wander what sort of cake I am? Oooh - now that was subtitle - a nasty little cutter - 10 points if you can pick the reference [img]smile.gif[/img] .