Euro Press Review..The Best and Worst.

Originally posted by Donut: Magik posts articles with the express intent to antagonise people. I have no prolem with this, or with him expressing his viewpoint. I only respond to him when he posts lies, or uses specious statistics.

I take exception to this particular comment. My motivation is not being honestly stated at all...so umm which ofus is guilty of lies here? I post lies? Show me one. Show me and everyone a Lie I have told..or retract the statement and make an apology.

Have I posted in error? yes, have I posted statistics that were later changed or turned out to have been subject to interpretation yes...did I do it to purpously mislead or to misinform...NO> and Donut....That comment is far and away the clearest personal attack that I have ever seen on IW. I am reporting your post.

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4"> I take exception to this particular comment. My motivation is not being honestly stated at all...so umm which ofus is guilty of lies here? I post lies? Show me one. Show me and everyone a Lie I have told..or retract the statement and make an apology. Have I posted in error? yes, have I posted statistics that were later changed or turned out to have been subject to interpretation yes...did I do it to purpously mislead or to misinform...NO> and Donut....That comment is far and away the clearest personal attack that I have ever seen on IW. I am reporting your post.

No need to get excited Magik, I never accused you of lying - just posting lies. There is a major difference, you yourself have just admitted that you have posted in error. It's no big deal.

As for the your motivation in posting these types of articles:

Link

To quote you (concerning Ironworks)


"Attalus, I never said I wouldnt post there anymore I said I wasn't going to be as active..by which I ment I wasn't going to debate...I just post irritating articles for the lefties to seethe over Look in the Current events under "Alternate Alternate view (not so long) thread...I have both articles there"

[ 01-02-2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Perhaps it is the distatsteful graphic in the header of the article, where the Eiffel tower has been seemingly "knocked" on to it's side. Yeah thats way more distasteful than caricatures of GWB the "Oil Monkey" That and the incitful (rather than insightful ) reference to the French as previously at "war against" the U.S. which is hardly the case, even if used metaphorically. Disagreement and at "war against" are concepts similiar but far apart. What whent on can legitimately be described as political warfare so no foul in my eyes. And I see very little comparison to the article Cerek refered too. Apples and oranges really. A look at the U.S. "hawks" who would drive the world to war after war in the name of fighting terrorism does not equate to a shallow, one-sided look at a few select European news bits. Oh and the article about the "hawks" doesnt contain imagery of any U.S. landmarks knocked sideways or any similiar imagery at all. In short, the original link is to an article that so far has only bread complaints and contempt. It's lack of substance coupled with the style of writing, choice of words, and added imagery suggest little more than Euro-nation-bashing in the guise of commenting on supposedly "notable" news from the previous year. If that graphic is your only beef...man you need a better argument. Also I wasn't aware we it was ok to break the rules or possibly break the rules if we gave warning that we were breaking the rules. That pretty much makes the rules useless eh? So far not a single person with any ounce of authority has declared me in violation of any rules...are you to be my judge, jury and executioner? You say I did...I say I didn't If I did the the mods will either remove the thread or lock it or suspend me or something. The truth is, its a best of/worst of column and is just taking articles from the press in Europe. It didn't fabricate the issues.

[/QUOTE]A. I have never called President Bush an oil monkey. President Bush is a politician not an historic landmark symbol of a nation and I do not see a connection to the article here.

aside- I love my principled and well thought-out disagreements with Bush is continually taken personally by people and thrown in face like it is a character fault. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

B. I never stated an opinion either way if posting a link to that article was against the rules. I pointed to some reasons why it might.

C. I simply question, in general, posting potentially objectionable and/or inflammatory material that may break the rules and this being excused because some sort of fore-warning is given.

D. If anyone cares to read the sticky post about fairplay in the forum, the idea is expressed that the best moderation is the type we do ourselves. They don't want to babysit mature adults having discussions about serious topics.

Originally posted by Donut: No need to get excited Magik, I never accused you of lying - just posting lies. There is a major difference, you yourself have just admitted that you have posted in error. It's no big deal. Ok, not excited or even breathing hard, just thought for some odd reason you had gone bonkers and decided to do a Michael moore on me...(Lies and the lieing liars that tell them....or whatever his book title was.) Of course I hope that in the future you will make it more clear that you do not suspect me of purposely posting false information to nefarious ends when you feel the need to step in and comment on me. Protesting a mischaracterizaion does not require excitement, ire, emotion or ranting...a call for retraction can be made from a completely calm state....I know mine was. As for the your motivation in posting these types of articles: First, one statement cannot be applied to every situation. My motivation for this particular post was merely as an interesting and to me and slightly humorous reminder to somethings gone past....Cerek's comments highlight the occurrences on the "otherside: so I don't need to rehash that. I never considered it would piss people off untill after the fact thus I went back and added the warning at the top..see the edit marker? Yes you quote me from that other place quite accurately....and I did say that, [img]smile.gif[/img] and Im sure you understand something being said or posted in a moment ...perhaps laced with irony, sarcasm or even facetiousness. I must admit at the time I did not fully understand the desire to monitor my actions accross the internet so closely nor expect such detailed files to be kept. Now I have something new to investigate and have some fun with. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: A. I have never called President Bush an oil monkey. President Bush is a politician not an historic landmark symbol of a nation and I do not see a connection to the article here. When did you start to think this was about you? aside- I love my principled and well thought-out disagreements with Bush is continually taken personally by people and thrown in face like it is a character fault. [img]tongue.gif[/img] again, this really isn't about you. B. I never stated an opinion either way if posting a link to that article was against the rules. I pointed to some reasons why it might. Ok, just checking. C. I simply question, in general, posting potentially objectionable and/or inflammatory material that may break the rules and this being excused because some sort of fore-warning is given. If it is not then there are far more blatant violations than me posting this link. The very nature of this forum almost gaurentees SOME people will find SOMETHING somewhee in it objectionable and irritating. Hell I don't think this is even the most "possibly" objectionable thing I have posted....let alone some of the....other posts I have read. D. If anyone cares to read the sticky post about fairplay in the forum, the idea is expressed that the best moderation is the type we do ourselves. They don't want to babysit mature adults having discussions about serious topics. I probably read that before you did....I seem to remember other threads where people were demanding the Mods step in....so perhaps this isn't one of your more firm opinions? Listen again..one last time...not every non-specific reference to anti-american/bush/anything refers to you personally.....most times..when I make statements I try to keep them general and nonspecific so as to NOT specificly nail one person to a wall.

[ 01-02-2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

[img]graemlins/shine.gif[/img]
Welcome back, MagiK. Did I ever tell you how much I missed the way you get under the skin of some folks. I mean, I try try try and just can't do it.

Anyway, I'm with MagiK and Cerek. That was a fine article, seemed to jab at just about everyone, and even cited a biscuit car show as best show -- and I note when I linked to Top Gear, the lead article was about the atrocious Chrysler Crossfire, including the observation: "Leave it to the Americans to ruin a Mercedes." Look, the way I hate the NRO, if the article didn't offend me, how bad can it be.

Davros, the CE forum calls for thicker skin, and yours has been thinning recently. If you can't take the heat, you may need to take a break. No offense, just a fair observation.

[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] .

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Davros, the CE forum calls for thicker skin, and yours has been thinning recently. If you can't take the heat, you may need to take a break. No offense, just a fair observation.

Wouldn't countenance the merest glimmer of the chancest thought my esteemed TL. Thinning? Davros looks at his skin after the excesses of Xmas and shakes his head bemusedly - you can't pin that on me mister [img]smile.gif[/img] - it's a set-up - I'm being framed I tell you - it's a bum rap [img]smile.gif[/img] .

I posed a question and it was (and still is) a valid one. There is no new stance here and the flames are no hotter or colder than they ever were. I have consistently objected to country bashing and country disrespect whether it be anti-French or anti-US. Where I see it I speak up. That hasn't changed and my promise to you is not to change.

[Timber Loftis]

Davros, if you linked to all the hyperlinks in the article and read them (to the extent you can understand the foreign language), you may understand that the article was reactionary to many things speaking ill of the US.

And, the French tragedy was horrible in human terms. And, there is nothing at all wrong about questioning how the French government failed to mitigate the problem. I believe even the French and British people/press have suggested blame lay upon the government's door for this SNAFU.

[John D Harris]

From what I can see there are ONLY two sentences that could be considered "Country bashing" and they are as follows:

France is the poor man of Old Europe these days because nobody in the country works more than a 35-hour week and because pensions are structured in such a way that national economic bankruptcy is guaranteed by the state.

"I loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world," (apparently a title to a book.)


The rest is bashing of either individuals, gov'ts, or the press in said countries. Now if we want to consider these activities to be country bashing that is fine by me. Then anything written about President Bush, the US gov't, or a news service in the USA MUST also be considered country bashing and STOP under the inturptitations(sp?) of the rules being stated.