Searching \ for '[OT] Who would you choose ?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=who+would+you+choose
Search entire site for: 'Who would you choose ?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Who would you choose ?'
2006\05\26@213509 by Jinx

face picon face
A little diversion for the w/e, and may you'll have the same
dilemma and internal dialogue as I've had

I'm filling in a quite comprehensive opinion survey, and one part I'm
really stuck on is

"Please write down the names of 3 public figures you admire the most"

Struggling to decide on even one

For example the results of a "Who do you trust ?" poll came
out yesterday

www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00003CD5-A35A-1475-A87B83
027AF1010F

Now, Brian "I'm a kind of bishop you know" Tamaki may be the
least trusted person in the country, but you could say he was to
be admired for his brass balls

Top sportsmen may be trusted but are they to be admired ? In
my experience top sportsmen are often single-minded and self-
absorbed (perhaps also applicable to politicians), which is why
I don't agree they should be "role models"

So, I could pick Sir Ed Hillary, but everybody picks him. Or
someone like Nelson Mandela for the same reason

It just got me to thinking - there are people I don't like, but maybe
admire, there are people I like but don't admire. Pehaps business
leaders ?

I might just choose 3 people for some obscure reason. Pity they
don't ask why. I might just leave the damn thing blank

===============================================
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

2006\05\26@223357 by Tony Smith

picon face
> A little diversion for the w/e, and may you'll have the same
> dilemma and internal dialogue as I've had
>
> I'm filling in a quite comprehensive opinion survey, and one
> part I'm really stuck on is
>
> "Please write down the names of 3 public figures you admire the most"
>
> Struggling to decide on even one


Public figures, pfft.  The ones to admire are off doing whatever it is
they're doing, without shouting 'look at me' every five minutes.  Ok,
some have others doing the shouting for them (or at them), but still.

Right then.

Your wife, your mother, and your wife's mother.

Done.

Life-long supply of brownie points, until you do something wrong.

If the committee argues that they aren't 'public' figures, merely point
out that going outside to do the shopping (er, oops, stereotype warning!
Brownie points loss imminent!) makes them a public figure.  Well,
they're out in public, aren't they?

And surely you admire your wife more than someone who can run up & down
a paddock with a ball for a hour of so?  (brownie points saved!)

Tony

(I was going to add post a picture so we can admire her too, but perhaps
not.)

2006\05\26@224249 by Jinx

face picon face
> Your wife, your mother, and your wife's mother.

Hmmm, I have only a mother (and contrary to popular belief
I have a named father too)

I was thinking someone who has overcome the odds or done
something special outside of their field rather than someone
who has got where they are, and probably couldn't help but
get where they are, by natural ability

2006\05\26@231458 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Jinx wrote:
> A little diversion for the w/e, and may you'll have the same
> dilemma and internal dialogue as I've had
>
> I'm filling in a quite comprehensive opinion survey, and one part I'm
> really stuck on is
>
> "Please write down the names of 3 public figures you admire the most"

-snip-

> It just got me to thinking - there are people I don't like, but maybe
> admire, there are people I like but don't admire. Pehaps business
> leaders ?

Ah, it is once again time for us provincial yankees to receive another
lesson in the mother tongue - english.

One might well have assumed that "admire" and "like" (in this sense)
were synonymous.  But Jinx would have us consider otherwise.

Jinx, you suggest above that you may like, but don't admire, some
people.  Here in the region bounded by Canada and Mexico, many tend to
see those concepts as one and the same.  See the excerpt below from one
of the common dictionaries.  So it is a new idea to me, at least, that
one would perhaps like someone but not admire them.

I enjoy learning of these linguistic variations.  Although the Chinese
may change things in the future, the bulk of communication upon the
internet seems to be in english and some may worry that we all are
accelerating towards a common dull finality where everyone thinks alike.
 But that end may be one that we will neither like nor admire! So it is
good that these small but significant differences of language appear now
and then.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

admire (àd-mìr´) verb
admired, admiring, admires verb, transitive
1.To regard with pleasure, wonder, and approval.
2.To have a high opinion of; esteem or respect.
3.Chiefly New England & Upper Southern U.S. To enjoy (something): "I
just admire to get letters, but I don't admire to answer them" (Dialect
Notes).
4.Archaic. To marvel or wonder at.

verb, intransitive
New England & Upper Southern U.S.
To marvel at something.

[French admirer, from Old French amirer, from Latin admìrârì, to wonder
at : ad-, ad- + mìrârì, to wonder (from mìrus, wonderful).]
- admir´er noun
- admir´ingly adverb

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.

2006\05\27@004157 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 01:34 PM 5/27/2006 +1200, you wrote:

>"Please write down the names of 3 public figures you admire the most"

For myself, William Morris and Carl Faberge. They're both dead, so they're
not really current public figures, but they were greats in the design field
of their day. Good businessmen too.

>I might just choose 3 people for some obscure reason. Pity they
>don't ask why. I might just leave the damn thing blank

Yes, you might admire some particular business people or politicians
because of their fine work, or simply because they were quite remarkable
scoundrels with amazing chutzpah.

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
spam_OUTspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->>Test equipment, parts OLED displys http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2006\05\27@011017 by Steve Smith

flavicon
face
Brunel Isambard Kingdom                Probably the greatest English engineeer
Trevithick Richard                Inventor of the steam engine
Babbage Thomas                        Made the first calculator (mechanical)

Steve


{Original Message removed}

2006\05\27@011341 by Steve Smith

flavicon
face
No no no its Charles not Thomas I got me Babages mixed up....

-----Original Message-----
From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
Steve Smith
Sent: 27 May 2006 06:10
To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Subject: RE: [OT] Who would you choose ?

Brunel Isambard Kingdom                Probably the greatest English engineeer
Trevithick Richard                Inventor of the steam engine
Babbage Thomas                        Made the first calculator (mechanical)

Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On Behalf Of
Jinx
Sent: 27 May 2006 02:35
To: pic microcontroller discussion list
Subject: [OT] Who would you choose ?

A little diversion for the w/e, and may you'll have the same
dilemma and internal dialogue as I've had

I'm filling in a quite comprehensive opinion survey, and one part I'm
really stuck on is

"Please write down the names of 3 public figures you admire the most"

Struggling to decide on even one

For example the results of a "Who do you trust ?" poll came
out yesterday

www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00003CD5-A35A-1475-A87B83
027AF1010F

Now, Brian "I'm a kind of bishop you know" Tamaki may be the
least trusted person in the country, but you could say he was to
be admired for his brass balls

Top sportsmen may be trusted but are they to be admired ? In
my experience top sportsmen are often single-minded and self-
absorbed (perhaps also applicable to politicians), which is why
I don't agree they should be "role models"

So, I could pick Sir Ed Hillary, but everybody picks him. Or
someone like Nelson Mandela for the same reason

It just got me to thinking - there are people I don't like, but maybe
admire, there are people I like but don't admire. Pehaps business
leaders ?

I might just choose 3 people for some obscure reason. Pity they
don't ask why. I might just leave the damn thing blank

===============================================
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

2006\05\27@020500 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Your wife, your mother, and your wife's mother.
>
> Hmmm, I have only a mother (and contrary to popular belief
> I have a named father too)
>
> I was thinking someone who has overcome the odds or done
> something special outside of their field rather than someone
> who has got where they are, and probably couldn't help but
> get where they are, by natural ability


Those people tend not to shout 'look at me a lot', and tend not to be
noticed (by media) anyway.  A recent list of top 20 theoretical
physicists (nominated by their peers) didn't included Stephen Hawkings,
arguably the worlds most famous.  Those 20 would never be nominated in
any other popularity test.  I've no idea who they are, or if I should
admire them.  The 'photon' thread started to make my head hurt.

It's hard when you don't care for the usual
celebrity\sportstar\politician crowd.  Last time I had to do something
like that down I put Hedy LeMarr.  When asked why I nominated Delilah, I
said "huh, you mean she did something besides frequency hopping radio
controlled torpedoes?".

Failing that, someone else's wife?

Tony


2006\05\27@075228 by Dominic Stratten

picon face
This guy gets my vote ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA

Dom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jinx" <joecolquittspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz>
To: "pic microcontroller discussion list" <@spam@piclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 2:34 AM
Subject: [OT] Who would you choose ?


{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\05\27@090049 by Dave Lag

picon face
Dominic Stratten wrote:
> This guy gets my vote ;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA
>
> Dom

Why weren't they wearing their pads and why is the ball the wrong shape?
at least they got the tackling part right...
:)

2006\05\27@120146 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Marcel Duchamp wrote:

> One might well have assumed that "admire" and "like" (in this sense)
> were synonymous.  But Jinx would have us consider otherwise.

> See the excerpt below from one of the common dictionaries.  

> 2.To have a high opinion of; esteem or respect.

Adding an excerpt from another dictionary for "to like":

v.t.
... 2. to regard with favor; have a kindly or friendly feeling for (a
person, group, etc.).

I have to go with Jinx. Even though English is not my native language, I
pretty easily can follow the train of thought that says that a "high
opinion of; esteem or respect" not necessarily means "liking" in the more
emotional sense that this often implies ("friendly feeling"). They seem to
be, in some sense at least, orthogonal concepts.

Have you ever known somebody you felt compelled to admire for whatever, but
who you didn't like? And have you ever known somebody you just liked, just
like that, without admiring that person?

Gerhard

2006\05\27@211534 by Jinx

face picon face
> One might well have assumed that "admire" and "like" (in this
> sense) were synonymous.  But Jinx would have us consider
> otherwise.

An example I could use is performers. I may like some artist, eg
a comedian or musician, on a personal level, but not admire them.
I might consider them a nice guy but material is weak or crap and
feel they're in the wrong business. So I don't admire them for
hanging around. OTOH I could admire them for stick-to-it-iveness.
In that regard, "admire" is not a suitable word

"admire" is subject to the fickleness and personality and views of
the "admirer". There are so many qualities to take into account. As
an extreme example - Kim Jong-il. Speaking unemotionally, you
could admire how he unites North Korea. The way he does it ? Not
admirable (to Western eyes)

"admire" is open to too much (mis)interpretation

2006\05\28@162149 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> v.t.
> ... 2. to regard with favor; have a kindly or friendly feeling for
> (a
> person, group, etc.).
>
> I have to go with Jinx. Even though English is not my native
> language, I
> pretty easily can follow the train of thought that says that a "high
> opinion of; esteem or respect" not necessarily means "liking" in the
> more
> emotional sense that this often implies ("friendly feeling"). They
> seem to
> be, in some sense at least, orthogonal concepts.

> Have you ever known somebody you felt compelled to admire for
> whatever, but
> who you didn't like? And have you ever known somebody you just
> liked, just
> like that, without admiring that person?

Whoever:    Read it all before reacting.

Adolph Hitler.
If one takes each of his achievements in isolation and not as a vector
sum.

I am by no means a supporter of what he did, taken as a whole. Or of
most of the methods that he used to achieve even the "better" parts of
what he did. Much of what he sought to do was admirable when taken in
its own context. Much that he achieved was good. His abilities were
amazing by most standards. But, when you examine how he achieved what
he achieved, and when you add all the 'other stuff' the vector sum is
rather different.

If he had not ascribed or acted on his more extreme views and if he
had been prepared to go at a slower pace he may still have achieved
much of what he sought to and been remembered by history as a
formidable opponent of less than desirable characteristics who made
Germany great again. But it's just as likely that instead he would
have been overrun by Stalin in the mid 1940s, and subsequently seen by
history as the man who failed to act decisively against Stalin when he
had the chance.

>From the same era, up close Churchill was probably more admirable than
likeable if you had to work with him. Even Stalin has to be admired
for what he achieved against Hitler (with a little help from his
friends ...). Little that Stalin achieved in other contexts appears
admirable.


       RM

2006\05\28@164726 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> "admire" is subject to the fickleness and personality and views of
> the "admirer". There are so many qualities to take into account. As
> an extreme example - Kim Jong-il. Speaking unemotionally, you
> could admire how he unites North Korea. The way he does it ? Not
> admirable (to Western eyes)

Uncle Kim is by no means the most extreme example that could be cited.

I didn't think very highly of Tito in his later years, until after he
died. When I saw what happened in 'Yugoslavia' subsequently I
appreciated him rather more.

Long ago I read somewhere a scurrilous but amusing piece
characterising nationalities by their stereotypical behaviours. One
part went something like. "One Bosnian is an ambassador. Three
Bosnians are an argument. 10 Bosnians ...". I had and have no direct
experience of Bosnians, but that made far less sense to me then than
now.

In perhaps 1974 someone (Regional Engineer, NZPO, Hamilton as it
happens) gave me an ancient sheet of numerical puzzles couched in
interesting terms. One began something like "The Bosnian Borderers
lost most of their weapons in the Montenegro uprisings, and now the
Vanguard has 300 pikes but no muskets, the rearguard has 4 swords to
every pike , the centre has ...". I remember thinking at the time how
the concepts of Bosnians and Montenegrans etc was a thing of history.
Little did I know that, when Tito's strong hand no longer held these
disparate peoples together, the dark evils of the past would again be
let loose. Tito was no stranger to evil and violence, but many would
prefer the peace that he ensured to the atrocities that followed. Most
might have trouble liking him, even in retrospect, but he might almost
be considered admirable :-).



       Russell McMahon


http://www.visit-montenegro.com/

http://www.montenegro.org/


2006\05\28@172347 by Robertino Benis

picon face


You would have never spoke like this, if you had spent a day living in that
horrible country under Tito's ruling!

r.


{Original Message removed}

2006\05\28@172912 by Mike Singer

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I am by no means a supporter of what he did, taken as a whole. Or of
> most of the methods that he used to achieve even the "better" parts of
> what he did. Much of what he sought to do was admirable when taken in
> its own context. Much that he achieved was good. His abilities were
> amazing by most standards.

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Auschwitz.htm ???

MS

2006\05\28@192719 by Jinx

face picon face
FWIW, just to finish it, I put down

Stephen Hawking
Alex Zinardi
David Gilmour (just beat Nigel Kennedy)

2006\05\29@020130 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
I actually visited that place.  It is much worse in person.

-----Original Message-----
From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Singer
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:29 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Who would you choose ?

Russell McMahon wrote:
> I am by no means a supporter of what he did, taken as a whole. Or of
> most of the methods that he used to achieve even the "better" parts of
> what he did. Much of what he sought to do was admirable when taken in
> its own context. Much that he achieved was good. His abilities were
> amazing by most standards.

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Auschwitz.htm ???

MS


2006\05\29@032706 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
part 1 1514 bytes content-type:text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; (decoded 7bit)

> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> I am by no means a supporter of what he did, taken as a whole. Or
>> of
>> most of the methods that he used to achieve even the "better" parts
>> of
>> what he did. Much of what he sought to do was admirable when taken
>> in
>> its own context. Much that he achieved was good. His abilities were
>> amazing by most standards.

> http://www.auschwitz.dk/Auschwitz.htm ???

The best short answer I can give to such questions is

>> I am by no means a supporter of what he did, taken as a whole.
>> Or
>> of most of the methods that he used to achieve even the "better"
>> parts of
>> what he did.

BUT

>> Much of what he sought to do was admirable when taken in
>> its own context. Much that he achieved was good. His abilities were
>> amazing by most standards.

Deja vu? :-)

________________

I've visited Dachau (but not, yet, Auschwitz). Terrible reminder. The
first but by no means the worst of the 'camps'. I've noted the lying *
"ARBEIT MACHT FREI" in wrought iron on the gates, [been possibly the
only person to have ever] climbed the wall and crossed the barbed wire
to get *into* the Dachau gas chamber enclosure [therein lies a story],
....

*** time warp starts ***

Slightly longer answer after I send the BOM I'm working on to the
client :-)


       RM

* In one terrible sense, not a lie at all :-(.



part 2 9449 bytes content-type:image/gif; (decode)


part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2006\05\29@042411 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
In Auschwitz the B is written mirror image supposedly as a warning to newcomers.  

I think I might see what you are getting at, Russell.  Say for instance a very evil regime invented the transistor and did so at the expense and suffering of millions, would it be wrong to use that technology?  Like with the medical experiments?  

I find this could be an interesting discussion, but I fear it will go political very soon, and I expect James is about ready to kibosh it anyway.

Lindy

{Original Message removed}

2006\05\29@042819 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>> I am by no means a supporter of what he did, taken as a whole. Or
>>> of
>>> most of the methods that he used to achieve even the "better"
>>> parts of
>>> what he did. Much of what he sought to do was admirable when taken
>>> in
>>> its own context. Much that he achieved was good. His abilities
>>> were
>>> amazing by most standards.

>>   http://www.auschwitz.dk/Auschwitz.htm ???

>  I actually visited that place.  It is much worse in person.

For interest, how do you consider my original statements (partially
quoted above), and the question above,  and your response interrelate?

It's often interesting to see what people do and don't make of
something one writes. And the responses themselves can often be
misconstrued.*



       Russell McMahon


* I'm not drawing any conclusions so far :-)


2006\05\29@044731 by Jinx

face picon face
> Say for instance a very evil regime invented the transistor and
> did so at the expense and suffering of millions, would it be
> wrong to use that technology?

There's something similarly moral going on here. Rakon are
supplying the US military with crystal oscillators. The anti-nuke
NZ Labour govt are OK with that if they're for defence, not
so if for offense

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501071&objectid=10383993

In Rakon's case, the development wasn't at the expense of
millions, but the end use may not be palatable to many


2006\05\29@045225 by Lindy Mayfield

flavicon
face
Me?  I was just following the non sequitur started by Mike.  

Like in a conversation.  Someone says this, someone says that, and someone says, "Oh I've been there, too."

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you support any such thing or that I think you do.  

Truth is, I really would like to respond to some of what you are really saying so much my palms are itchy, but it just won't fly in this forum.  

No offence meant, Russell.  

Lindy

{Original Message removed}

2006\05\29@061713 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> ... and I expect James is about ready to kibosh it anyway.

Nah.
He's got more sense than that.

:-)


   Russell

2006\05\29@062228 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> There's something similarly moral going on here. Rakon are
> supplying the US military with crystal oscillators. The anti-nuke
> NZ Labour govt are OK with that if they're for defence, not
> so if for offense
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501071&objectid=10383993
>
> In Rakon's case, the development wasn't at the expense of
> millions, but the end use may not be palatable to many

The attempt to draw a distinction between offence and defence in such
a situation would be laughable if it were not so inane. Or is that
inane if it were not so laughable? Does that eg mean you can't use NZ
product in the pre "the war is won" stage of DS2 but it's OK
subsequently for perimeter and area maintenance but not for insurgency
suppression, except when ... ?

That's about as sensible as (I'm not making this up * ) our government
MPs 'boycotting' the Rugby 7's games when Fiji (in the midst of a
military coup) was playing by standing talking to reporters behind the
stands while the ?20? minutes games involving Fiji were played, then
going back to watch the rest.

Back to the BOM ...



       RM


* Thanks to Dave Barry for the concept.

2006\05\29@121811 by Mike Singer

picon face
Even bloodiest criminals could reveal some positive virtues.
For example after the killing they could donate some victim's stuff to
a poor person.
But I'd rather not to call that a true charity.

When discussing Hitler's history role we often hear next arguments:

> He gave Germany pride and self confidence,

Yes, but this kind of pride and self confidence is usually called
"Nazism". The pride of being superior to the inferior human races, the
pride of being able to decide which human race is allowed to stay on
the Earth and which is not.

> he slashed unemployment, raised standards
> of living, improved the overall lot of the common
> people,

What would you say if some US president would kill 50 million (some
middle and high class) of 300 US population, and scattered their
property among the rest, thus "raising the standards of living" and
"improving the overall lot of the common people"?

> built superb roading systems, public works and much more.

He often did that using slaves killing them by this work; like in
ancient history; nothing to be proud of.

---
Hope nobody offended.

MS

2006\05\29@145856 by Peter

picon face

On Mon, 29 May 2006, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

> In Auschwitz the B is written mirror image supposedly as a warning to
> newcomers.
>
> I think I might see what you are getting at, Russell.  Say for
> instance a very evil regime invented the transistor and did so at the
> expense and suffering of millions, would it be wrong to use that
> technology?  Like with the medical experiments?
>
> I find this could be an interesting discussion, but I fear it will go
> political very soon, and I expect James is about ready to kibosh it
> anyway.

Wasn't the Godwin clause invoked on this thread already ?

Peter

2006\05\29@213400 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> When discussing Hitler's history role we often hear next arguments:

>> He gave Germany pride and self confidence,

> Yes, but this kind of pride and self confidence is usually called
> "Nazism". The pride of being superior to the inferior human races,
> the
> pride of being able to decide which human race is allowed to stay on
> the Earth and which is not.

Not the pride that I was talking about. As you may well imagine. He
took a people who were downtrodden and who had been financially bled
to death by the undeniable excesses of the WW1 reparations exacted by
the victors, and gave them back national pride, improved working
conditions and national identity in ways which would be largely
acceptable within the bounds of any number of modern democratic
societies. (How he obtained the powe to do so was less salubrious).
Unfortunately, along the way he also stole their minds.

>> he slashed unemployment, raised standards
>> of living, improved the overall lot of the common
>> people,

> What would you say if some US president would kill 50 million (some
> middle and high class) of 300 US population, and scattered their
> property among the rest, thus "raising the standards of living" and
> "improving the overall lot of the common people"?

Long past time for him to go.
But, that would apply to brother Joseph from the next big country up,
but not to Hitler at the stage I was talking about.

>> built superb roading systems, public works and much more.

> He often did that using slaves killing them by this work; like in
> ancient history; nothing to be proud of.

Not what I was talking about. See below.

A common human problem is the inability or refusal to separate for
separate treatment facts which are to a variable extent orthogonal.
Another problem is to attempt to artificially compartmentalise those
things which are intimately related. In discussing Hitler and his
actions it is hard to avoid one or other or both of these errors.

Much of what Hitler did that was, arguably, admirable was done in his
earlier years when he had not had the opportunity to exercise his
excesses to excess. Throughout his rule he was progressively getting
more extreme and even early on he did or allowed things which were
beyond any level of reasonable behaviour.

   But few of his early positive actions were at the expense of those
who
   he was responsible for. And those that were were arguably no more
   so than is currently acceptable in modern democratic states.
   (Look aboot ye*).

Slave labour, mass murder, medical 'experiments' and the like were
very largely the children of the later years of his rule. "Unremitting
violence" was however his constant hallmark (this based on his own
comments). The ability and resources to implement it grew with time.

"Crystal Night" occurred in November 1938 - well into his progression
into utter tyranny. The "night of the long knives" where Hitler
committed murder in terms of German state law of the time, and was not
held accountable for it by the German public, was in June 1934 and
arguably is the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end on
the path from uber-patriot to demon.

If we utterly demonise an utter demon and fail to see that he was not
always so, then we run the grave risk of not seeing the same
progression in those we support. Recognising that a man who had many
motives that were essentially good and acceptable, and who did many
things which were also good and acceptable, can by degrees be utterly
perverted by his darker imaginings, is a valuable lesson.




       Russell McMahon



* Apposite motto of the Clackmanashire County Council AFAIR.

Googles ...

Fancy that. I got it right ! :-)
Apart from the two n's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackmannanshire

We stayed in a camp ground there and the motto was on, amongst other
things, a rubbish bin near our tents.


2006\05\29@225150 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
The Three Men I Admire Most....
The Father, Son and The Holy Ghost,
Just Took The Last Train For The Coast...


Jinx wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officer
New Communications Solutions, LLC
*spamBeGonecareyfisherspamBeGonespamncsradio.com <TakeThisOuTcareyfisherEraseMEspamspam_OUTncsradio.com>
Toll Free Phone:888-883-5788
Local Phone:770-814-0683
FAX: 888-883-5788
http://www.ncsradio.com <http://www.ncsradio.com/>

2006\05\30@010352 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> The Three Men I Admire Most....
> The Father, Son and The Holy Ghost,
> Just Took The Last Train For The Coast...

Obviously got his religion from the same source as the person who
wrote "I saw three ships come sailing by ..." :-)
Good tune.

Like the US National Anthem, only the 1st verse is usually sung.
Like the US National Anthem, reading the other verses can be
interesting :-)

>From memory (so may not be quite perfect)

"And who was in those ships all three ..." / " ... their foul
footsteps pollution."



       RM

2006\05\30@042545 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I might just choose 3 people for some obscure reason. Pity
>they don't ask why. I might just leave the damn thing blank

Try picking someone like Dr William Pickering - and wait for the "Who ???".

Or James Cook (would you be prepared to sail off into the unknown, possibly
fall off the edge of the earth, and even go sailing among the Antarctic
icebergs with an old collier which is somewhat less than manoeuvrable?).

I am part way through the book "Moondust", where the author interviews the 9
remaining "Moonwalkers" and some of the support Apollo crew and ground
support team. Not sure if my admiration is growing or waning on some of them
at this point.

2006\05\30@072325 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:02:32 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

>...
> Like the US National Anthem, only the 1st verse is usually sung.
> Like the US National Anthem, reading the other verses can be interesting :-)

Ours too!  This one:

"And with a mighty rush
rebellious Scots to crush..."

gets the attention of those North of the Border...

Cheers,




2006\05\30@084030 by Carey Fisher

face picon face


Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Memory, what memory? Magnetic core?

   *I Saw Three Ships Come Sailing By*

   I saw three ships come sailing by,
   Come sailing by, come sailing by.
   I saw three ships come sailing by,
   On New Year’s Day in the morning.

   And what do you think was in them then?
   Was in them then, was in them then?
   And what do you think was in them then,
   On New Year’s Day in the morning?

   Three pretty girls were in them then,
   Were in them then, were in them then.
   Three pretty girls were in them then,
   On New Year’s Day in the morning.

   And one could whistle, and one could sing,
   And one could play on the violin,
   Such joy there was at my wedding,
   On New Year’s Day in the morning.

   from: http://www.mamalisa.com/blog/?cat=341

--

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officer
New Communications Solutions, LLC
*RemoveMEcareyfisherspamTakeThisOuTncsradio.com <careyfisherEraseMEspam.....ncsradio.com>
Toll Free Phone:888-883-5788
Local Phone:770-814-0683
FAX: 888-883-5788
http://www.ncsradio.com <http://www.ncsradio.com/>

2006\05\30@110325 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >From memory (so may not be quite perfect)

> "And who was in those ships all three ..." / " ... their foul
> footsteps pollution."

Memory, what memory? Magnetic core?

   *I Saw Three Ships Come Sailing By*

...

   And what do you think was in them then?
   Was in them then, was in them then?
   And what do you think was in them then,
   On New Year’s Day in the morning?
etc


If it's on the web it must br right!. Right?

Certainly not the CofE, RC or original version :-)

I'll go with my memory on this one.


       RM

Ah, what the heck.

Q:
d three ships
"HYMNCA~1.MHT

Viola: (yep, I know)

1. I saw three ships come sailing in,
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
I saw three ships come sailing in,
   On Christmas day in the morning.
2. And what1 was in those ships all three?
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
And what was in those ships all three?
   On Christmas day in the morning.
3. Our Saviour Christ and his lady2
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
Our Saviour Christ and his lady,
   On Christmas day in the morning.
4. Pray whither sailed those ships all three?
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
Pray whither sailed those ships all three?
   On Christmas day in the morning.
5. Oh, they sailed into Bethlehem,
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
Oh, they sailed into Bethlehem,
   On Christmas day in the morning.
6. And all the bells on earth shall ring,
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
And all the bells on earth shall ring,
   On Christmas day in the morning.
7. And all the Angels in Heaven shall sing,
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
And all the Angels in Heaven shall sing,
   On Christmas day in the morning.
8. And all the souls on earth shall sing,
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
And all the souls on earth shall sing,
   On Christmas day in the morning.
9. Then let us all rejoice, amain,
   On Christmas day, on Christmas day,
Then let us all rejoice, amain,
   On Christmas day in the morning.
FWIW:
Bethlehem is land locked.
Verse 3 seems to account for only 2 ships. AFAIR the Holy Ghost is
named as a 3rd occupant in earlier versions.
Not good theology, or poetry, or ... regardless.
________________________

While we're here.
Q:
d anthem
       ... file not found
fin
d anthem
"usnati~2.htm

More Violas

The Star-Spangled Banner



Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight'
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen, thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream;
'Tis the star-spangled banner: oh, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
>From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that has made and preserved us as a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust";
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Tune: Anacreon in Heaven

Written by Francis Scott Key on September 14th,1814.


'[OT] Who would you choose ?'
2006\06\01@142654 by Mike Singer
picon face
Russell McMahon  wrote:
> > Yes, but this kind of pride and self confidence is usually
> > called "Nazism". The pride of being superior to the inferior
> >  human races, the pride of being able to decide which
> > human race is allowed to stay on the Earth and which is not.
>
> Not the pride that I was talking about. As you may well
> imagine. He took a people who were downtrodden and who
> had been financially bled to death by the undeniable excesses
> of the WW1 reparations exacted by the victors, and gave
> them back national pride, improved working conditions and
> national identity in ways which would be largely acceptable
> within the bounds of any number of modern democratic
> societies.

Perhaps you are right, Russell. You read many books. You are the King
of [OT]. I don't read books that much now. Just both my grandfathers
and all their brothers were killed during WW2 and one of my
grandmothers died of hard work at that times. So, my opinion is a bit
biased. I can imagine that the opinion of tenths of millions WW2
victims would also be biased, if they could express their opinion.
They can't. So, perhaps we should be more careful with expressing our
opinions?

Please explain me one thing, I can't grasp. Why those masses of
immigrants preferred USA refugee status to that "given back national
pride" and improved national identity? Albert Einstein was among them
in 1933 when Hitler came to power, if I'm not mistaken. Much of the
refugee's property was abandoned making possible to "improve working
conditions" for "financially bled to death".

What "largely acceptable within the bounds of any number of modern
democratic  societies" Nazi period are you talking about? Please,
specify it. In 1939  Dachau started. Hope you don't think this way
would be largely acceptable. In 1933 refugees were getting out. They
were not satisfying much with this kind of national pride, improved
working conditions and national identity, why?

> Not the pride that I was talking about. As you may well
> imagine.

There is no just one more pride. Once a nation accepts nazism, fascism
or whatever this kind, there is no place for just one more pride for
the nation.

MS

2006\06\02@105700 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:

> Once a nation accepts ...

This is an easy thing to say, but what is "a nation" and can this what you
define as "a nation" reasonably "accept" anything (which kind of requires a
single conscience)?

Also note that from Hitler's rise to power until his end were only 12
years, and 6 of these years were war time, with all the related
difficulties of knowing what is going on and having the power of creating
resistance. This may have some relevance for what "accepts" means.

While some may think that Hitler could have had some reasonable success if
only he didn't go to war (and lose it), I think that going to war was a
substantial (if possibly unconscious) element of his "stay in power"
strategy. IMO it is pretty certain that he wouldn't have survived
politically for a long time without the pressure of war.


> ... nazism, fascism or whatever this kind, [...]

There are probably fascist or "whatever this kind" moments in many
countries' histories that took more than 12 years to create any form of
substantial criticism or resistance (or never created such). Does this lack
always mean that "a nation accepted"? This is not so black and white as it
may seem at first sight.


> So, perhaps we should be more careful with expressing our opinions?

Did you mean "we" or "you"? :)

Gerhard

2006\06\02@113946 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> > So, perhaps we should be more careful with expressing our opinions?
>
> Did you mean "we" or "you"? :)

We, all of us.

Thank you.

MS

2006\06\11@110331 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Robertino Benis wrote:

> You would have never spoke like this, if you had spent a day living in that
> horrible country under Tito's ruling!

Probably. It's just as possible to think that the horrors that happened
after Yugoslavia broke up were in some ways caused by Tito's rule than to
think that they were prevented by him.

Another interesting data point in this context: GDP per capita.

Yugoslavia (corrected): $3700
Serbia and Montenegro: $2700
Bosnia: $6800
Macedonia: $7600
Croatia: $11600
Slovenia: $21000

I'm not sure many of those outside Serbia share Russell's appreciation :)

Gerhard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell McMahon
> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 1:38 PM

> I didn't think very highly of Tito in his later years, until after he
> died. When I saw what happened in 'Yugoslavia' subsequently I
> appreciated him rather more.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...