bdschobel

benoit,

The level of the terrorist threat right now is difficult to determine. One could argue that the lack of a serious attack in almost a year suggests that Al Qaeda has been, if not defeated, at least thwarted in its efforts to attack the U.S.

In any case, even if the terrorist threat is huge, I don't see how making mothers drink their own breast milk is going to protect us. Or taking away tweezers (thank God that's over now -- at most airports) or any of the other silly things that have been done in the name of security.

You probably will not be shocked to learn that I too like living -- and I suspect that my four children also like having me around (life insurance notwithstanding!). So, naturally, I gladly go along with meaningful, effective security measures, like reinforcing cockpit doors and arming pilots (although I have mixed feelings about that one). But I will continue to criticize and try to end counterproductive silliness that does more harm than good. Don't you do the same thing?

Bruce

anrkitec

Ah benoit,

I feel that your attempt to play on emotions rather than reason is IMHO laughable and sadly obvious though completely understandable. The argument you make that should someone not agree with your opinion they somehow dishonor those lost on 9/11 is beneath even the most fatuous of hate mongers. But then this is from someone who seriously tried to convince us that all U.S. commercial airports were in fact military installations.

I truly believe that anyone so frightened by anything, even the tragic events of 9/11, that are willing to trade away any part of their liberty for the hollow promise of some personal safety never truly understood the nature of freedom in the first place. They either naively believe that freedom will always be there, that nothing can change, and that as long as they are doing all right any and all efforts in service to their personal status quo are justified or they believe that the foundation of that freedom is so weak that any attack upon it will render it impotent, therefore justifying giving up their freedom in a vain attempt to preserve it.

Again, I believe that my analogy of frightened children is quite appropriate. Children are frightened not because they are bad or necessarily deficient people but because they simply don’t know any better. They fear what they cannot understand or control. Please understand that there is an enormous difference between fear and caution and alertness.

The potential for future terrorist threats are quite real though far less so than that of being killed in an automobile accident or from being hit by lightening. Just as I am not frightened of being killed by a terrorist, nether am I frightened of cars or lightening yet all three remain very real threats. I use common sense, I drive carefully and I come in out of the rain. But just as with terrorists, I know that I cannot control, for example, how other people drive or any number of other potential dangers lurking in daily life. However, that realization does not force me into being home bound because of some irrational fear, nor does it make me alter the way that I live my life and it most definitely does not make me willing to cede my freedom to every charlatan that offers me personal safety in exchange for subservience.

As always, ignorance and fear abhor the light.

Cheers, and please drive carefully.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 08-18-2002).]

LarryJ

Wasn't there a bit over a year spacing between each of al qaeda's previous 'big' attacks?

bdschobel

Yes. That's why I said, "one could argue...," rather than making the argument my own. Still, even if I agreed that the Al Qaeda threat is enormous, how is that connected to making mothers drink their own breast milk?

Let's implement security measures that respond in some way to the actual threat. Let's not terrorize our own law-abiding citizens in the name of security.

Bruce

Brian

Interesting point. So why are all of your condescending and inflammatory posts anonymous?

anrkitec

>condescension on< Yawn >condescension off<

I had my email address up for about a year but I got tired of receiving childish and hateful emails that referenced to FT threads. I never took any of it seriously, certainly not personally, but it just became boring. There are several FTers with whom I have had and continue to have cordial off-FT discussions, which was never the problem.

I have nothing to hide, I suppose I could have created a FT only email address but it just didn’t seem all that important. If those FTers to which I first referred would have attached their FT handles to their hate-mail then I would have left up, or posted a new, email address as that could prove to be quite interesting.

If you have something that you would like to say to me privately just say so and I will be more than happy to contact you.

Question, have you asked this same question, that they reveal themselves, in some dramatic form perhaps, of other FTers whose posts could be just as easily considered inflammatory, but with whom you happen to be in ideological agreement? No?

As for my posts being condescending and inflammatory…well, never mind.

I understand that unanimity and the warm, soft, middle is a comfortable place to be. But it is oh so boring and more to the point there comes a time in everyone’s life when they must choose to take a stand and decide what it is, if anything, that they really believe in.

By the way, you might have noticed that what you quote me as saying, pointing it out as a particularly condescending comment, was in fact a dig at the self-same notion that you made in your previous post. Guess you missed that one huh?

Have a nice Monday.



[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 08-19-2002).]

bdschobel

For what it's worth, I have never been shy about taking positions on FT, yet I have never received any "hate" e-mail (or even mildly hostile e-mail). Of course, now I'll probably get a whole bunch of it!

Bruce

Brian

I have received one "hate" mail in the last couple of weeks, but merely tracked the person who sent it down via their Instant Messinger account, and asked them to use more courtesy. They didn't respond, but I haven't heard from them again.

Guys like Anrkitec and their points of view are literally a dime a dozen. But it is interesting that our champion of bravery, who is willing to call those willing to be identified "frightened children," wishes to remain anonymous.

Words are cheap, actions speak. I wont be responding to him again.

anrkitec

I must admit that I am curious as to exactly what actions you see yourself as engaging in that I am not. Like I said, if you really want to say something to me privately just ask, I will be more than happy to provide you with my [real] email address.

Man, I never realized the extent to which I and/or my opinions apparently get to you. Why take things so personally? While I may have aggressively challenged your opinions and suppositions it is not as though I somehow attacked you personally, whoever you may be.

I do understand that you probably didn’t like me pointing out that you just criticized me for doing exactly what you just did two posts up. Come on now, aren’t we showing just a little bit of inconsistency here (notice that I didn’t say hypocrisy ) Is any of this a reason to take up your marbles and go home. This is, to me anyway (Omni-esue forums and threads) all about discussing and debating (even passionately) ideas, not personalities.

Oh well, I have lived in a Brian-less world before; I will manage to do so again.


Edited to add that I have provided an email address for anyone that might be interested, though as it does not include my full legal name as well as my current address it will be insufficient for some. Cheers everyone




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 08-19-2002).]