The Logic Off Topic list

At 10:51 AM +0200 9/26/01, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
>Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 9/26/01:
>
>>That kind of apology is far more offensive than none at all.
>
>Guess it's just impossible to make everybody happy...

Perhaps not but that kind of "apology" would not make *anyone* happy.

>  >Your criticism of Bush is basically that you think he said the wrong
>>thing at the wrong time.  The pot calling the kettle black if ever
>>I've seen it.
>
>Well argued...

Thank you.

>I guess saying nothing, and waiting to see what happens, and only
>then, in case someone f*cks up, speak up, is a more sensible course
>of action?
>
>Grateful to be enlightened...

OK gladly.  In a post to GA Moore you ask:

>Now who misprespresent what here?  This is really getting to my
>nerves.  I try to remain polite and reasonable, but these false and
>bizarre accusations coming "out of the blue" really start to annoy me.

Your question is ho is misrepresenting what.  In your "apology", 
which BTW was really not much more than just having another go at the 
people you offended in the first place, you said

>  The people
>making the most noise seem to be those that scream that America isn't
>to blame for anything, at best grudgingly admitting that "Vietnam
>possible wasn't such a good idea".

The remark seems to be directed at me since the quoted bit appears to 
be an out of context piece of something  that I wrote which in it's 
entirety was:

>Cuba was obviously pretty much a disaster, Korea could have been a 
>success but instead ended up being a disastrously pulled punch, much 
>to MacAurthur's chagrin.  And Vietnam?  What a sad debacle. 
>America Vietnam and the entire world would have been much much much 
>better off if the US had done nothing at all or better still if the 
>US government had simply recognized the government that Ho Chi Minh 
>was trying to establish in 1945 based on a constitution that was 
>pretty much simply a translation of that of the United States.  Yes 
>Ho Chi Minh had studied Marxism but in 1945 he was not a Marxist he 
>was simply trying to prevent the reoccupation of his country by the 
>French who BTW spent an amount of money on their war in Vietnam that 
>was equal to the amount of aid money they received from the US after 
>the war.  I have seen you [GA Moore] asking here if the US should 
>have simply let the USSR have their way in Vietnam.  With the gift 
>of hindsight the answer would have to be a resounding YES because if 
>that is what we had done and the USSR had tried to take Vietnam it 
>would have been them that were humiliated instead of us.  On the 
>other hand the Soviets might  have looked at the history of Vietnam 
>(like the US apparently didn't) and decided that invading Vietnam 
>was not a good idea.

So is the balanced perspective that you are advising us all to take? 
The one that says the above statement is "grudgingly admitting that 
'Vietnam possible wasn't such a good idea'"?

Now I am just dumb o'l Merican cowpoke and therefore by definition I 
don't know nothing about open mindedness but I am really not sure 
what kind of mind could read what I wrote there say that it was 
"grudgingly admitting that 'Vietnam possible wasn't such a good 
idea'".  I suspect that such a mind would be of such a shape and 
dimension as to make it suitable for slipping through mail slots, 
keyholes or sliding under doors.

The "perspective" appears to be that of the writer standing in front 
of a full length mirror with a Fresnell lens four inches out front of 
his ego.

But again I am just a hairy chested cowboy.  What do I know.

Gitcher ass ready for some O good ol fashioned word peace cause it's 
kumin atcha from Hendrik Jan Veestra.
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html