Alex, I too respect your opinions and expressed thoughts about music and have enjoyed dialoguing with you on that subject. I have found you, first and foremost, to be open minded on the subject of music even while having well defined tastes. This most recent and minor (and it is, in the scheme of things) conflict is a perfect justification for my suggestion to O-10 and example of why we should stay clear of topics that are potentially provocative and not directly related to the subject of this thread. However, I find your reaction to recent comments both duplicitous and disingenuous. Allow me to explain:
I did not "take O-10's bait", I had no intention to get embroiled in another discussion about politics. I suggested that he refrain from his occasional tendency to bait and provoke so as to avoid precisely what is happening as I write this. Why duplicitous?
You object to my involving you in a another discussion about politics. If that offended you, my apology. However, I need to point out that you had already involved yourself with your "torture chambers in Guantanamo" comment. Although I doubt it, perhaps your comment was meant solely as humor; not a topic that has much room for humor. Not being from this country and perhaps because of your political orientation, you may not be aware of the fact that this is a political topic that is highly "charged" in this country; however, I am sure you are aware of this. I need to also point out that while you object to my involving you, you don't seem to mind, and conveniently overlook, the fact that O-10 first involved you; and, at the expense of other participants here. Why did you not object to that, Alex?
****Alex seems to be the least affected by the media hype, brain washers; by that I mean a person has to do independent research to find facts.****
Additionally, you went on to involve him with:
****Frogman, I am quite sure that Orpheus will giggle reading this, but if you have recognised the ’bait’ why did you have to answer it?****
Alex, I hope you can appreciate, on some level, the silliness of all this and how, if anything, it's just an indication of "thin skin" all the way around. Absent any further "proof" or valid retort from you, and given the obvious ambiguities and limitations of dialogue about complicated topics on a forum such as this, what is apparent to me is that the reason that you object to my taking those liberties and not to O-10 doing the same is that you and he seem to agree politically and you and I do not; not a particularly "deep" reason, imo. Speaking of "deep", or absence of it, this is what really matters (to me, anyway):
You may have noticed that my suggestion to O-10 was to not bait and to encourage "RESPECTFUL" dialogue about these topics if we choose to discuss these topics.
****I have come to the conclusion after our last ’discussion’ that (when it comes to politics) your perspective and opinions are not wide or deep (are that the proper terms?) in a way that your perspective is, or the whole attitude toward seeing ’bigger picture,’ when you discuss music.
That came as an unpleseant surprise****
So, my political views are not "wide" nor "deep". Hmmm, doesn't sound respectful to me, Alex. In fact, I find it rather arrogant on your part for being dismissive of the possibility that there may be a political outlook different from yours that may have validity; especially one held by someone who you acknowledge is capable of deep thinking. Outlook which is, in turn, judged by someone living in a different part of the world. Why make it personal? Alex, I have no desire to discuss politics with you here beyond cursory and causal comments because, as you point out, it is obvious that we are "far apart" on the subject. What I can tell you is I can accept this difference of opinion and not let it color my reaction to your comments. Frankly, I consider this a shame since I suspect that we could have some very interesting and intelligent discussions on these topics if we had a different setting. I would be most intrigued and interested in learning about your background, your heritage and culture and all that contributed to your point of view. Can you say the same?
I did not "take O-10's bait", I had no intention to get embroiled in another discussion about politics. I suggested that he refrain from his occasional tendency to bait and provoke so as to avoid precisely what is happening as I write this. Why duplicitous?
You object to my involving you in a another discussion about politics. If that offended you, my apology. However, I need to point out that you had already involved yourself with your "torture chambers in Guantanamo" comment. Although I doubt it, perhaps your comment was meant solely as humor; not a topic that has much room for humor. Not being from this country and perhaps because of your political orientation, you may not be aware of the fact that this is a political topic that is highly "charged" in this country; however, I am sure you are aware of this. I need to also point out that while you object to my involving you, you don't seem to mind, and conveniently overlook, the fact that O-10 first involved you; and, at the expense of other participants here. Why did you not object to that, Alex?
****Alex seems to be the least affected by the media hype, brain washers; by that I mean a person has to do independent research to find facts.****
Additionally, you went on to involve him with:
****Frogman, I am quite sure that Orpheus will giggle reading this, but if you have recognised the ’bait’ why did you have to answer it?****
Alex, I hope you can appreciate, on some level, the silliness of all this and how, if anything, it's just an indication of "thin skin" all the way around. Absent any further "proof" or valid retort from you, and given the obvious ambiguities and limitations of dialogue about complicated topics on a forum such as this, what is apparent to me is that the reason that you object to my taking those liberties and not to O-10 doing the same is that you and he seem to agree politically and you and I do not; not a particularly "deep" reason, imo. Speaking of "deep", or absence of it, this is what really matters (to me, anyway):
You may have noticed that my suggestion to O-10 was to not bait and to encourage "RESPECTFUL" dialogue about these topics if we choose to discuss these topics.
****I have come to the conclusion after our last ’discussion’ that (when it comes to politics) your perspective and opinions are not wide or deep (are that the proper terms?) in a way that your perspective is, or the whole attitude toward seeing ’bigger picture,’ when you discuss music.
That came as an unpleseant surprise****
So, my political views are not "wide" nor "deep". Hmmm, doesn't sound respectful to me, Alex. In fact, I find it rather arrogant on your part for being dismissive of the possibility that there may be a political outlook different from yours that may have validity; especially one held by someone who you acknowledge is capable of deep thinking. Outlook which is, in turn, judged by someone living in a different part of the world. Why make it personal? Alex, I have no desire to discuss politics with you here beyond cursory and causal comments because, as you point out, it is obvious that we are "far apart" on the subject. What I can tell you is I can accept this difference of opinion and not let it color my reaction to your comments. Frankly, I consider this a shame since I suspect that we could have some very interesting and intelligent discussions on these topics if we had a different setting. I would be most intrigued and interested in learning about your background, your heritage and culture and all that contributed to your point of view. Can you say the same?