Mite H8 the Military.. But.... [Archive]

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 7:25 PM

Promised me wud return 2 this... toyed wiv the idea a startin a new thread an prob shudda but the claim that me shud b thakful 2 the military an that they secured an handed me me freedoms wos made ere... an jus so there no mistake in translation..me rites in English.... yet anotha lil pieca evidence that me not lil bimbo..

My freedoms and rights were won for me, as was marriedbooboo's and most every one else here not by the military but millions of ordinary human beings who lived fought and died in defence and furtherance of their own and their descendants future well being and liberty. Serfs, peasants and workers by the million stood up for what they belived was right and it is to them we owe a debt of gratitude for our freedom over the centuries. The military was often deployed by kings and governments, landowners and business to crush the advance of peoples liberty. It was historically the tool of the status quo not of liberty and progress. Indeed many of the rights and freedoms which Americans and commonwealth countries enjoy were won by the poor in my own country standing against that self same military machine centuries ago. Many stood against the military during the American revolution, and indeed in our own civil war a century earlier. That these were violent and bloody conflicts was regrettable but they were the standard of the times. That they should have and could have been avoided in other ways is true, but they were not as the British ruling elite was not prepared to let go of their power and property. Had reason prevailed then who knows what kind of world we would be living in now.

Even today in many countries the military exists to often brutally maintain the political elite and hence the status quo. Arguably even in western countries it exists for that same reason, though much less blatantly overt. Western democracies are far more subtle and appeal to patriotism, when in fact they mean for us to maintain not our freedoms and way of life, but for the furtherance and defence of those of their of their poltical elites. The freedoms and rights of most people are defended only insofar as their interests meet with the approval of those elites. Our belief in the democratic systems of our respective countries certainly makes us more pliant and prevents us from being far more militant in defence of our rights and freedoms than has hitherto been the case. Indeed we often accept removal and restriction of our freedoms as defence of our liberties and rights when it is in fact nothing of the kind. Many of us who argue for improved human rights and extensions to our freedoms are considered disloyal and even treacherous because of our faith in the so called democratic system which we arguably, enjoy..

The military is in the end the tool of the state.. not of the people although we are told otherwise. When millions decide that the system is not working and they begin to protest and show dissatisfaction, the last line of defence of the elite is military. Sometimes they side with the people, but all too often for their own agenda not because of their belief in the common people. They too have a position to uphold and for that reason the military is not our Army, Navy and Air Force, however much we would wish it to be, but that in the first instance of the elite of which it is in itself a part, but ultimately, it is its own instrument whatever political system we live under and enjoy or indeed, suffer...

bisexualinsocal

Jun 15, 2008, 7:29 PM

Reminder: The freedoms you enjoy were secured and handed to you by those men & women that you "loath".

Thank you!

As quickly as these people want to gloss right over the sacrifices of those who served, we need to be just as quick to remind them... at every corner, with every breath. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 7:42 PM

That's very disrespectful towards people who are in the military, who work in the military, or who have served in the military.

I'm sure that some of your best friends or family are some of them and that they post here.
Because I may loathe an institution does not mean I do the people who work for it. I have a different opinion of the reason why it exists and the value placed upon it. There are many within the military who are decent human beings for whom I have great respect. I am not being disrespectful of anyone but am arguing a point in which I firmly and passionately believe. It is disrespectful of you are anyone else to insist that I do otherwise. I respect people for what they do and who they are, and not because I must because of their position or their job. This is the 21st century and to do otherwise is a betrayal of our integrity and our humanity as well as our principles.

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 7:46 PM

I garentee you that without the military as you put it 'a body' we'd be in a worse situation and we'd live in a worse world.

Look at WW II where if we hadnt gone to war with Germany with America on our side and actually had a military we'd all be speaking German and be nazis now.

No system of government is perfect or the best and someone's always left out. Communism, socialism, democracy, Monarchy, dictatorship or anything else no one different form of government actually is the best or solves everyones problems.

My argument is simple... we as intelligent human beings can surely be bright enough to avoid getting into a position where we have to have war. War is there as a toll to defend not us the great mass of humanity, but to defend those who would have us die in a war to defend them and their position. I dont insist you agree with me simply respect my view that war and killing other human beings is an evil that we should be trying to do without and find other ways of settling disputes between nations. They do exist you know. All we have to do is find them.

TaylorMade

Jun 15, 2008, 7:54 PM

What I think others are pointing out is that some people are unwilling to find peace, and for right or for wrong, and we must defend ourselves from them. Either you must forcefully impose your idea that we MUST get along (which DOES require force, because not everyone's gonna lay down arms and sing Kum Bi Ya) , or do what you're doing now.

*Taylor*

TaylorMade

Jun 15, 2008, 8:04 PM

Thats not gonna happen though. Not in our lifetime and it never has in human existence.

Look at how bad Africa is! People and entire countries will go to war and slaughter their neighbors just because of old tribal disputes or the person's ancestors!

And that was long before Western Interference. . .but I will say the West did aggravate it. But Africa and parts of Russia are still a good examples of what happens when human nature is left on its own.

It's even replicated in the animal kingdom. . .Ants have armies, Chimps form raiding parties to molest and kill their rivals. . .if they can't get along. . .chances are it's not in our nature either.

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 8:25 PM

And that was long before Western Interference. . .but I will say the West did aggravate it. But Africa and parts of Russia are still a good examples of what happens when human nature is left on its own.

It's even replicated in the animal kingdom. . .Ants have armies, Chimps form raiding parties to molest and kill their rivals. . .if they can't get along. . .chances are it's not in our nature either.

*Taylor*
As an athiest Taylor I am just glad I have more faith in humanity than do you. I do not say that a world of peace without war will happen in my lifetime for it will not. It may never happen at all ..ever. Yet I do have sufficient faith that in centuries to come, millenia even, should humanity survive that long, it will realise the futility of conflict and find the way to true peace. Maybe it is living in cloudcuckoo land but I have that dream and that faith. We are not instinctive animals but thinking, sentient beings. That in time I believe will see us there unless of course we are stupid enough to destroy ourselves and our world in the interim... Every idea and everything which humanity has achieved germinated in someones mind and others carried it forward to fruition. A world without war is not my idea, but I do what I can to persuade people that it should be the way forward. Others will come after me who will much better do what must be done to get there. I know my view is very much a minority one and many have contempt for its merest suggestion. But wasn't every idea at some time or other? Even the idea of Jesus Christ being the son of God?

TaylorMade

Jun 15, 2008, 8:33 PM

As an athiest Taylor I am just glad I have more faith in humanity than do you. I do not say that a world of peace without war will happen in my lifetime for it will not. It may never happen at all ..ever. Yet I do have sufficient faith that in centuries to come, millenia even, should humanity survive that long, it will realise the futility of conflict and find the way to true peace. Maybe it is living in cloudcuckoo land but I have that dream and that faith. We are not animals but thinking, sentient beings. That in time I believe will see us there unless of course we are stupid enough to destroy ourselves and our world in the interim... Every idea and everything which humanity has achieved germinated in someones mind and others carried it forward to fruition. A world without war is not my idea, but I do what I can to persuade people that it should be the way forward. Others will come after me who will much better do what must be done to get there. I know my view is very much a minority one and many have contempt for its merest suggestion. But wasn't every idea at some time or other? Even the idea of Jesus Christ being the son of God?

Humanity is fallible. I only put as much faith in fallible things as they deserve.

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 8:37 PM

Humanity is fallible. I only put as much faith in fallible things as they deserve.

*Taylor*Thats the excuse of ages... an bout time we started 2 put a stop 2 it... its the excuse 2 do nuthin..an that certainly me can neva accept...

TaylorMade

Jun 15, 2008, 8:45 PM

Thats the excuse of ages... an bout time we started 2 put a stop 2 it... its the excuse 2 do nuthin..an that certainly me can neva accept...

Did I say do nothing? No. But what I am saying is that even you have admitted it is a far reaching and improbable goal. And until then, humanity has to protect itself.

And that is why we have armed forces. That is why I think LGBT people should understand those that dislike them, and failing that, arm themselves for self defense.

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 8:57 PM

Did I say do nothing? No. But what I am saying is that even you have admitted it is a far reaching and improbable goal. And until then, humanity has to protect itself.

And that is why we have armed forces. That is why I think LGBT people should understand those that dislike them, and failing that, arm themselves for self defense.

*Taylor*

Wer did me say it wos improbable??? Sed me had faith it will happen in times 2cum... don accept it 2 b inevitable but do hav a deep held belief it will...

Me agrees we shud try an undastand those who dislike an disapprove of us..but arm ourselves gainst em?? Rite..an that solves wot?? It persuades em we r 2 b liked? Don think so sumhow... more likely persuade em we a danger 2 em an shud b slaughtered wholesale.. our job is 2 persuade an do things peacefully not threaten as often they do us...

TaylorMade

Jun 15, 2008, 9:07 PM

Wer did me say it wos improbable??? Sed me had faith it will happen in times 2cum... don accept it 2 b inevitable but do hav a deep held belief it will...

Me agrees we shud try an undastand those who dislike an disapprove of us..but arm ourselves gainst em?? Rite..an that solves wot?? It persuades em we r 2 b liked? Don think so sumhow... more likely persuade em we a danger 2 em an shud b slaughtered wholesale.. our job is 2 persuade an do things peacefully not threaten as often they do us...

You said...

I do not say that a world of peace without war will happen in my lifetime for it will not. It may never happen at all ..ever.

I took that to mean improbable, my mistake.But you do at least admit that it may not even happen at all!

What being armed does is that it equalizes the two opposing forces. It pulls the weak from subservience to parity. In America, lynchings went down after black soldiers came back from WWI partially due to the fact that they were armed and ready to defend their families. Being armed is not about flashing a gun, but knowing that you have it in case you need it.

*Taylor*

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 9:35 PM

Taylor ya kno zactly wot me sed if ya cared 2 read alla wot me sed.. course its not inevitable..jus happen 2 believe it will cum if humanity survives that long... don pik out lil bits 2 try an prove ya point cos it won work wiv me...

Now do c ya point bout armin an equalisin forces.. jus don accept it as a wise premise.. as 1 who abhors an h8s violence an who believes in her pacifism wiv a passion me cud do no otha... don expect ya 2 agree cos me knows ya won..an thats fine.. we hav diff ideas a wer humanity is headed an how it shud b actin in gettin 2 our respective goals.. wich will win out in end fraid neitha u or me will b bout 2 c, tho if u rite mayb u will in the sense ya hav ya spiritual beliefs 2 keep ya goin an so mite liv joyously in the hereafta... an ifya rite spose me won b ne wer cept burnin in the eternal fires a hell... an don take me rong.... thats not a snide comment foreya jump down me throat, but anotha argument for anotha day hun innit??? tee hee:tong:

darkeyes

Jun 15, 2008, 9:53 PM

Ne ways..afta alla that fun yet serious banter.. still gud news bout Brit service peeps an London Gay Pride....:bigrin:

MarriedBooBoo

Jun 16, 2008, 6:42 PM

Ne ways..afta alla that fun yet serious banter.. still gud news bout Brit service peeps an London Gay Pride....:bigrin:

I'll agree with you there darkeyes, however, the rest was rubbish....in my opinion.

The men and women of the militaries thru out the world (friends or foes) obviously, MAKE UP the military. So, when you say that you loathe the military, but not the men and women who MAKE UP the military...it doesn't make sense...to me. But hey, your country's military made it possible so that you may loathe them. I choose to thank my country's military for all they've done in the past, do now, and will do in the future.

I saw a sign on someones lawn, it read: "You don't have to support the war, but you better damn well support the troops!"

MarriedBooBoo

Jun 16, 2008, 7:09 PM

Thank you!

As quickly as these people want to gloss right over the sacrifices of those who served, we need to be just as quick to remind them... at every corner, with every breath. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.

EXACTLY!

darkeyes

Jun 16, 2008, 8:37 PM

Seems no 1 reads an digests a word me sez...

darkeyes

Jun 16, 2008, 9:23 PM

Dus sumtimes wonda how often peeps engage ther brains.... it dead easy 2 like peeps even tho ya don like wot they do for a job...even a nasty job... sevral of me m8s don support same football team as me..a few even horror of horrors...aint socialsts.. sum r even str8... gosh..dreadful innit? Ne who think that cos me loathes the military as an institution me necessarily h8's the folk that work for it an has no respect for em r not only misguided but bloody stupid. It dead easy 2 hav huge disagreements wiv peeps an still respect an like em as peeps. Sure me h8s wot they do..but they hav opinions an beliefs an they do things cosa those opinions an beliefs. We differ but we don h8 each otha cosa that difference. Me will argue wiv em an we will shout an scream at each otha bout soooooooo much... but we r m8s..an we respect the fact that we hav diff opinions.. diff principles an a diff view of the world. We r human an so we differ in so much..don mean we havta hav no respect am no luff for each otha..cos it jus aint fukkin true. An if u don believe that then it aint me that has the prob is it?

darkeyes

Jun 16, 2008, 9:30 PM

.... an jus 2 remind yas alla jus wot the luffly booboo raised initially... jus who did win us our freedoms an rites... the military?? yea..sure they did.... do sum readin an do sum thinkin.. that 2 much 2 ask?

captslaprock

Jun 16, 2008, 9:57 PM

YOU & GEORGE W CAN COME IN MY PART OF THE COUNTRY & SEE HOW A PISSED OFF REDNECK FEELS ABOUT THE SITUATION

bisexualinsocal

Jun 16, 2008, 11:48 PM

Seems no 1 reads an digests a word me sez...

We're still trying to figure out what you said.

bisexualinsocal

Jun 17, 2008, 12:27 AM

You said...

I took that to mean improbable, my mistake.But you do at least admit that it may not even happen at all!

What being armed does is that it equalizes the two opposing forces. It pulls the weak from subservience to parity. In America, lynchings went down after black soldiers came back from WWI partially due to the fact that they were armed and ready to defend their families. Being armed is not about flashing a gun, but knowing that you have it in case you need it.

*Taylor*

Well said and this is what the left does not understand and almost refuses to understand.

Don't you know that Americans don't know their own minds, religion is a crutch and guns are a sign of underlying pathology?

You can tell this is what they believe. Just look at their presidential nominee. He insulted broad middle America with his "people turn to religion out of frustration" comments a couple months ago.

Guns may not be for everyone, especially some of the unstable people who seem to be flooding internet message boards, but they are a constitutional right. History proves that governments can become tyrannical. Our Christian founding fathers knew this and gave us the 2nd amendment just in case.

FalconAngel

Jun 17, 2008, 12:34 AM

Darkeyes, dear; As a US Army vet, I do not take offense at your stance on the military.
Those of us who really believe in defending freedom, to the end, understand that we have the ugliest, dirtiest, nastiest, most thankless job on the planet. We have to do the things that, if we did them on the outside, would be criminal.

As for all of those people that can't figure it out, here's the deal; everyone is entitled to their opinions and feelings. Darkeyes has said that it is not the soldiers that she hates, but the institution.
If you are all paying attention to what she is saying, at least in the subtext, she understands the need for it, but that does not mean that she has to like it.

War is an ugly business and soldiers don't want to have to go to war, but sometimes they must go to war.
Fact of the matter is, any decent soldier trains to do a job that he/she hopes that never has to be done. A good example is Col. Paul Tibbets (pilot of the Enola Gay). He carried the guilt of destroying Hiroshima with him, his entire life from that day forward, even though all he did was fly the plane.

Darkeyes knows that we need the military, but that does not mean that she has to like needing the military.

FalconAngel

Jun 17, 2008, 12:43 AM

Our Christian founding fathers knew this and gave us the 2nd amendment just in case.

um.......actually, our founding fathers were mostly Unitarian Universalists, not so much Christians.

And the 2nd amendment was originally written to allow 2 things; the rapid call up of militias and prevent the government from having the ability to overthrow the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people as a whole.

When they say "an armed population is a safe population" they are not talking about crime as much as they are talking about protecting the people from abusive government. The government should be more afraid of the people than the people are of the government.

bisexualinsocal

Jun 17, 2008, 1:33 AM

TaylorMade

Jun 17, 2008, 2:13 AM

um.......actually, our founding fathers were mostly Unitarian Universalists, not so much Christians.

And the 2nd amendment was originally written to allow 2 things; the rapid call up of militias and prevent the government from having the ability to overthrow the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people as a whole.

When they say "an armed population is a safe population" they are not talking about crime as much as they are talking about protecting the people from abusive government. The government should be more afraid of the people than the people are of the government.

The UU's, while present, were not prominent in the US until the late 1700's. . .so I don't know what you have backing that assertion. I'm getting the Decade from wiki, with Unitarian professors coming into Harvard(a major breakthrough) in 1805.

Most hold that the FF's were Deists. . .believers in a First Cause and all of that; some were Anglican, and general grab bag of Christian denominations with varying degrees of devotion. No fire and brimstone types, but. . .at most there were one or two (maybe three) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unitarians%2C_Universalists%2C_and_Unitari an_Universalists) UU's. And out of 50-something signatories . . .that's not most.

*Taylor*

pasco_lol_cpl

Jun 17, 2008, 2:55 AM

shagamatic

Jun 17, 2008, 3:58 AM

I agree with both sides of this debate. I look at the military as a necessary evil. I agree with darkeyes that war is terrible; yet I also feel that a nation must be able to defend itself.
Having said that, I also feel that darkeyes has some valid points. All throughout history the military has been used by unscrupulous leaders to pursue their own agendas- wealth, power, etc.
I believe that one should appreciate the sacrifice that others have made
while in the military; and at the same time keep a very close watch on the powers controlling that military. In my opinion, the present war in Iraq is a good example of armies going to war for "special interests". In contrast, I believe the war in Afghanistan is a matter of self-defense.
Speaking of special interests', Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of WWII warned about the dangers of the military industrial complex in the 1950s. If one takes a look at the profits being made by this complex in Iraq it should make one pause and wonder.

darkeyes

Jun 17, 2008, 8:19 AM

God me dus luff a gud argy bargy... even wen agreein peeps find summat 2 disagree bout..aint we wonderful species?? An so far no 1 has called in the military.. tee hee.

But afta that lil bitta lite hearted funnery (wiv a point).. who won us our freedoms?? Thats the crux of me argument.. an who historically wos the tool for obstructin em?? The ansa mite depend 2 sum extent in wich country ya liv... but not entirely...

darkeyes

Jun 17, 2008, 9:29 AM

Soz Shag ( brill name by way.. tee hee:tong:) didn mention it an shudda but ya r the 1st 2 pik up ne thin bout wot me wos sayin.. ta for that.. me pacifism is personal yet important 2 me jus as every 1 else ere has things important them.. that ya pikked up on wot the debate me been tryin 2 hav shud b a bout, an not wetha or not we can abolish war an hav luffly peaceful world wer all is sweetness an lite, warms the cockles of me heart..

frenchvikki

Jun 17, 2008, 11:43 AM

I do agree with Darkeyes general argument that it was ordinary people throughout our history who fought for and were responsible for our rights and liberty. That the military of many nations endeavoured, and still endeavour, at the behest of those nations masters to prevent those rights and freedoms being attained is undoubtedly true. Many died horribly in the struggle for liberty yet in many instances, not all by any means, it was by military action that these liberties were won also. The wars of independence of both her own country (and mine), Scotland, and the United States of America are such examples. The civil wars she mentions in the British Isles and the USA of the 17th and 19th centruries are instances of ordinary people gathering together and fighting wars in defence of and for the improvement of the rights of the individual, and for the freedom of nations. Many other examples exist throughout the world. Castro's war against the US backed Batista regime in Cuba, the French revolution, the war against the Smith regime of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, the Mau Mau rising in Kenya, Mao's war in China and many others, and of course we must never forget the Russian revolution. That not all ended up being good for the great mass of people is undeniable, and can be used as evidence by Darkeyes as to whose benefit these wars were really fought. The way they fought and died for the principle of liberty we should never forget or the struggle they endured and the principles for which they lived and died. The lessons of struggle, and those of the aftermath must never be forgotten and more, they have to be learned and taken on board.

Also like Darkeyes, I do wish to see a world free of strife and do think that there has to be a better way of settling disputes between nations. I hope she is right about that day arriving however long it may take. My father believed it out of religious and personal conviction, and deep down I wish to believe it myself. The best I am able to say is I do not disbelieve it and that gives me some comfort and hope.

dafydd

Jun 17, 2008, 4:10 PM

I don't think darkeyes was having a go at the military. I think she was coming from the point of view of hating wars and fighting. This is a good viewpoint. In an ideal world why would you want a military?

d

Dagni

Jun 17, 2008, 5:13 PM

I agree with Fran on many ocasions. We really don't need military and that would make our life much easier.

But i have to take some new examples, cause there is some things that i don't understand at all. Americans veterans from various wars. Why do you support military when your country was never attacked? In newer history there wasn't war on your territory, so i don't see the point of supporting military and military actions worldwide cause no one attacked you.

I will take Finland like opposite example: The war that we made against Soviets on German side was huge mistake, and it won't repeat again. We learned our lesson that we can't fight against much stronger than us.

Looking more back in history of Finland, we were few centuries under the Sweden and i don't want to complain about it cause we were treaten in the same way like Swedes.

So, what's the point of supporting military on any occasion?

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 8:04 PM

Seems no 1 reads an digests a word me sez...

Well, you are 28 and type like a 16 year old... It is rather ridiculous how you butcher the language.

Anyhow, as far as the military goes, I have the utmost respect for those who served as military life is by no means easy. Further, it isn't their choice of whom they are to fight, they are along for the ride so to speak. It is up to congress/president to deploy them as they see fit. If you want to take out the frustrations, tell it to the president and those in congress who voted yes for that particular war.

Politically speaking, the hawks and pacifists are both off. You can't just sit back and let things happen as eventually you're going to be fighting on your homeland. Expecting dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc to play nice and not doing anything is irrational and in reality, just stupid. Some people, no matter how many chances given, no matter how nice you are to them, will kill/occupy your people and take your country if given the opportunity. However, one must be careful not to become those whom are hated. There is a balance to using force.

darkeyes

Jun 17, 2008, 9:32 PM

Well, you are 28 and type like a 16 year old... It is rather ridiculous how you butcher the language.

Anyhow, as far as the military goes, I have the utmost respect for those who served as military life is by no means easy. Further, it isn't their choice of whom they are to fight, they are along for the ride so to speak. It is up to congress/president to deploy them as they see fit. If you want to take out the frustrations, tell it to the president and those in congress who voted yes for that particular war.

Politically speaking, the hawks and pacifists are both off. You can't just sit back and let things happen as eventually you're going to be fighting on your homeland. Expecting dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc to play nice and not doing anything is irrational and in reality, just stupid. Some people, no matter how many chances given, no matter how nice you are to them, will kill/occupy your people and take your country if given the opportunity. However, one must be careful not to become those whom are hated. There is a balance to using force.
A Zitta twitta.. tee hee.:bigrin::tong:

Soz hun.. don mean 2 sound so belittlin jus cudn resist.. but dus accept in a way summa wot ya says... don deny that rite now the world aint ready for pacifism.. don deny that for long time 2 cum peeps r gonna feel they need armed forces for the defence a king an country.. the powers that b will make sura that 1 way or otha.. cos its in ther interests even more 2 do so... as much for guardianship of the realm an protestin ther position in society as gainst ne external threat..

Ther r diff kinds pacifism..mine prob the most extreme..that in no circumstances wud me now or eva pik up a weapon 2 defend mesel gainst an aggressor.. cudda dun sevral times in me life, but tried 2 use otha ways, such as talkin me way outa trubble.. sumtimes it worked an all.. am not stupid woteva ya think... me knos an realises the reality of the world.. jus me chooses logically or illogically dependin on how ya c it, neva 2 pik up arms in me own defence..nor will me support the armin of ne 1 else 2 defend that king (well..Queen at pres 2 b precise) an country me mentioned earlier... protectin human life aint a game for me.. no matta the provocation me hopes it summat that me neva eva hasta b put in a position 2 threaten anotha human life.. this world is that important 2 me... human life is that important 2 me... ya can laff an think "wotta silly cow". Thats ok... ya entitled 2 ya opinion jus as me is entitled 2 mine.

Boutya claim on dictators like Saddam, Hitler, Stalin an othas..ya dus hav a point...don deny it.. jus that me c's things a lil diff from u..cos ther r ways a stoppin the likes a those peeps eva cummin 2 power.. partly by educatin peeps, but also by not craetin the conditions 2 allow em 2 cum 2 power in the 1st place.. the 3 ya mentioned had external support by nations and/or bloody gr8 business interests outwith ther countries an wer encouraged financially an morally by support from these places... many of ther probs wer created externally..certainly in the case a Germany afta the Versailles Treaty... in each country the general population did hav a huge grievance wich played inta the hands of the peeps we talkin bout.. in at least 2 of the cases in point, grievances wiv ther origin outside of ther homelands. In the case of Hitler an Saddam, they jus 2 examples of the dog turnin an bitin the hand that fed em, an in time, so did Stalin... wot me sayin is that we shud b careful of jus who we shuv inta power as "puppets"...cos sumtimes the puppet, like Pinnochio cums 2 life an has a brain an ambition of its own... had these 3 neva been helped 2 power by otha nations the history of the world wudda been different.. it may or may not hav been ne more pleasant or peaceful, we can neva kno.. but it is a valid claim... by neva interferin as we do in otha nations affairs mayb we can avoid many of the probs we face..ther will always b probs..but in time mayb less.

By peoples helpin each otha in an altruistic manna mayb we can gain a betta undastanding of each otha, instead of always seemin 2 upset the applecart by thrustin aid wiv strings on otha nations, or denyin em aid wivout strings an sponsorin coups for 1 daft reason or otha, an not treatin potential conlfict areas even handedly. By workin 2 getha the nations of the world, by undastandin an cooperation mite jus eva so slowly over centuries or millenia, eliminate the need for conflict an move toward that panacea of wich me dreams so vividly...so believes in so passionately.

Soz ya don like the way me speaks in ere usually... mayb wud b betta always speakin the Queens English but its jus not in me...cos howeva we speak woteva we say..if the message is important enuff peeps will read it an sum mite even agree..even they don..an they reckon me talkin bollox... that no reason for us 2 fall out an start shootin is it??? Same goes for nations me reckons... jus hope its our kismet wiv enlightenment gained durin the passage of time...

Howeva..our lil tiff Zitta me luff, still don ansa the question a jus who won us our rites an freedoms.. a much more mundane issue than world peace, but an important an equally fascinatin 1...

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 10:05 PM

English please.

darkeyes

Jun 17, 2008, 10:07 PM

English please.

Nope..me scottish...:bigrin:

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 10:09 PM

Nope..me scottish...:bigrin:

Ok, non-text typing Scottish then please. I know a few Scott's and I can easily understand them.

darkeyes

Jun 17, 2008, 10:20 PM

Ok, non-text typing Scottish then please. I know a few Scott's and I can easily understand them.

Wot me types certainly aint Scottish... can rite in the Scots language..but even lotsa Scots hav probs readin it so me reckons u wud hav no chance.. wos jus lukky me dad taught me cos sure as hell it aint taught in schools... soz hun..jus havta put up wiv howeva me types... ur choice wetha its summat ya wanna persevere wiv:tong:

Now am off 2 me bed hun...work in mornin...enuff 2 make ne 1 in a bad mood.. :( tee hee:bigrin:

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 10:24 PM

Wot me types certainly aint Scottish... can rite in the Scots language..but even lotsa Scots hav probs readin it so me reckons u wud hav no chance.. wos jus lukky me dad taught me cos sure as hell it aint taught in schools... soz hun..jus havta put up wiv howeva me types... ur choice wetha its summat ya wanna persevere wiv:tong:

Now am off 2 me bed hun...work in mornin...enuff 2 make ne 1 in a bad mood.. :( tee hee:bigrin:

I know you can type to your age level. Trust me, typing like that just makes you appear very, childish and extremely lazy.

Aside from that...have a good night!

Dagni

Jun 17, 2008, 10:28 PM

English please.

I think that was English with Scottisch dialect, and also i think you made fool of yourself by saying that you know few Scotts and that you can easily understand them. Ok, i am native Finnish and i can easily understand and allow even some Estonians or Kvens to speak on their own language simply because they have right to do it.
And of course when you talk to Scots, of course that most of them wont use their dialect (i hang around with many, many Scotts), they will just use "typical" english, just in the same way that i use english here with some members from Scandinavia, Italy, and Netherlands.

bigirl_inwv

Jun 17, 2008, 10:31 PM

I know you can type to your age level. Trust me, typing like that just makes you appear very, childish and extremely lazy.

Aside from that...have a good night!

Actually...being that upset about it makes you seem quite childish. If you don't want to take the time to translate her posts, then don't do it. There are many of us who completely understand what Fran is saying. We don't mind it...she wouldn't be herself if she didn't do it.

So next time...instead of complaining...why don't you just not read them!?

mkay! :rolleyes:

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 10:34 PM

I think that was English with Scottisch dialect, and also i think you made fool of yourself by saying that you know few Scotts and that you can easily understand them. Ok, i am native Finnish and i can easily understand and allow even some Estonians or Kvens to speak on their own language simply because they have right to do it.
And of course when you talk to Scots, of course that most of them wont use their dialect (i hang around with many, many Scotts), they will just use "typical" english, just in the same way that i use english here with some members from Scandinavia, Italy, and Netherlands.

As far as the Scot's I know when they use their dialect, it is usually a non-issue. I have only seen that gibberish from her. In deciphering her last post, she even admits that most Scot's do not understand what she writes.

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 10:37 PM

Actually...being that upset about it makes you seem quite childish. If you don't want to take the time to translate her posts, then don't do it. There are many of us who completely understand what Fran is saying. We don't mind it...she wouldn't be herself if she didn't do it.

So next time...instead of complaining...why don't you just not read them!?

mkay! :rolleyes:

Normally, I skip over her posts. In this case it was a topic of interest. I was able to mostly pick out what was going on via proxy of other people's posts. If it is her, so be it, as I said I typically ignore her. Really, I just as soon the reply be in another language. At least then I could run it through babelfish.

gfofbiguy

Jun 17, 2008, 10:40 PM

I understand her writing, as it is phonetic with some numbers thrown in for shortening ...... :bigrin: Just need to use your imagination when reading her posts........makes life interesting!;)

bisexualinsocal

Jun 17, 2008, 10:43 PM

Actually...being that upset about it makes you seem quite childish. If you don't want to take the time to translate her posts, then don't do it. There are many of us who completely understand what Fran is saying. We don't mind it...she wouldn't be herself if she didn't do it.

So next time...instead of complaining...why don't you just not read them!?

mkay! :rolleyes:

I disagree. Earlier darkeyes asked why no one was responding to her posts. And the consensus is that if you want responses, type coherently. Seriously, isn't there another message board where people speak and understand that gibberish? We're all speaking english around here. How about show some respect for your fellow board members and speak so they can understand?

Dagni

Jun 17, 2008, 10:43 PM

As far as the Scot's I know when they use their dialect, it is usually a non-issue. I have only seen that gibberish from her. In deciphering her last post, she even admits that most Scot's do not understand what she writes.

We all understand Fran, and we respect her. That's her. Respect her individuality.
Btw, since you only know a few Scots, do you want me to buy you a ticket to Scotland to visit it and to see how the Scotland really looks like and what kind of dialect is in real use over there?

bigirl_inwv

Jun 17, 2008, 10:47 PM

I disagree. Earlier darkeyes asked why no one was responding to her posts. And the consensus is that if you want responses, type coherently. Seriously, isn't there another message board where people speak and understand that gibberish? We're all speaking english around here. How about show some respect for your fellow board members and speak so they can understand?

I understand her perfectly. And I know for a fact that there are others here who do as well. She has made plenty of posts that prove that she writes extremely well and quite intelligently might I add. Like I said before...if you don't want to read it, simply don't do it. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. She writes in dialect...a little intelligence is all it takes to read it. Now...if some are lacking in that department...it's definitely not a matter of how Fran writes her posts.

gfofbiguy

Jun 17, 2008, 10:47 PM

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 10:51 PM

We all understand Fran, and we respect her. That's her. Respect her individuality.
Btw, since you only know a few Scots, do you want me to buy you a ticket to Scotland to visit it and to see how the Scotland really looks like and what kind of dialect is in real use over there?

You know, I would love to take you up on that! I already know how Scot's talk but I would LOVE to see the country and Europe in general. I still want to jump over to Finland, particularly the areas of Kuusamo and into the Russian frontier areas near Pya Lake, then up in Salia...but that is another story.

bisexualinsocal

Jun 17, 2008, 10:57 PM

I understand her perfectly. And I know for a fact that there are others here who do as well. She has made plenty of posts that prove that she writes extremely well and quite intelligently might I add. Like I said before...if you don't want to read it, simply don't do it. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. She writes in dialect...a little intelligence is all it takes to read it. Now...if some are lacking in that department...it's definitely not a matter of how Fran writes her posts.

That's a weak attempt at a back handed insult. Typical of frustrated intellectuals. You are no judge of intelligence, I'm not sure you're qualified to judge anything.

That said. She wanted to know why she wasn't receiving responses, a couple of us answered. Your contributions here are unnecessary.

TaylorMade

Jun 17, 2008, 11:00 PM

Actually...being that upset about it makes you seem quite childish. If you don't want to take the time to translate her posts, then don't do it. There are many of us who completely understand what Fran is saying. We don't mind it...she wouldn't be herself if she didn't do it.

So next time...instead of complaining...why don't you just not read them!?

mkay! :rolleyes:

I disagree. I don't think darkeyes wants to be reduced to her dialect. But- - in the eyes of some members (and I understand this) . . .the dialect is all they see, so why should they bother? In their eyes, she's just an entity that has nothing but that goofy way of speaking. And somedays, I do feel like that when I read her posts. I wouldn't type in Jamaican patois all the time. . .as proud as I am of my ethnic identity, but I know people would stop reading what I have to say.

*Taylor*

bigirl_inwv

Jun 17, 2008, 11:03 PM

I disagree. I don't think darkeyes wants to be reduced to her dialect. But- - in the eyes of some members (and I understand this) . . .the dialect is all they see, so why should they bother? In their eyes, she's just an entity that has nothing but that goofy way of speaking.

*Taylor*

That's not what I meant by that post at all. What I meant was that Fran types that way because that's the way she wants to type. She is being herself. I don't mean that the way she types is all there is to her. I think most of us know better than that.

Dagni

Jun 17, 2008, 11:05 PM

You know, I would love to take you up on that! I already know how Scot's talk but I would LOVE to see the country and Europe in general. I still want to jump over to Finland, particularly the areas of Kuusamo and into the Russian frontier areas near Pya Lake, then up in Salia...but that is another story.

You wont find anything intresting in Kuusamo except my tyrany father with his driving academy (if you're willin to learn rally stile, you have to pay for that and ticket to Finland may be free only if i'm in good mood), and people in Finland are too reserved for any kind of communication (except if you want to learn Finnish or Swedish no matter that all Finns speaks english), and i know that you're wrong about Scotland. Been to Scotland million times, i know it all over, the end of the story.

TaylorMade

Jun 17, 2008, 11:17 PM

That's not what I meant by that post at all. What I meant was that Fran types that way because that's the way she wants to type. She is being herself. I don't mean that the way she types is all there is to her. I think most of us know better than that.

But if you read some of the posts of the people who refuse to read Fran's posts when she types in dialect. . .that's some of the objections they present, and to a degree, I agree with them.

*Taylor*

Bisexualnewbie

Jun 17, 2008, 11:19 PM

Dagni, you talk a lot and have nothing to back it up, as for the ticket, yes I'll take one to go home if it ever appeared (too expensive right now and trying to get my parents here cause I'm really missing home right now but not ready to start a charity)
I really have no problem with our military, British (of which I was part of) or American, they have no choice in where they go at all and I support them for following the choices of older men put in the position of being able to choose without the fear of death, do I agree with the choices the governments and older people make........no.
War is something brought on by older people to be fought by younger men and women.

Falke

Jun 17, 2008, 11:40 PM

You wont find anything intresting in Kuusamo except my tyrany father with his driving academy (if you're willin to learn rally stile, you have to pay for that and ticket to Finland may be free only if i'm in good mood), and people in Finland are too reserved for any kind of communication (except if you want to learn Finnish or Swedish no matter that all Finns speaks english), and i know that you're wrong about Scotland. Been to Scotland million times, i know it all over, the end of the story.

Wait, how am I wrong about Scotland? I said I have never been there before, however I have chatted Scot's online and in person, I even work with one! Not one of them has talked/typed like that. Even the heaviest accent I have heard from someone straight from Scotland understandable. Oh well, I'll quit before I begin re-covering my points and sounding like a broken record! :rolleyes:

I would have no issues with trying to pick up some Finnish, but those areas are of interest to me due to it's history. Driving academy sounds fun too! :bigrin:

Dagni

Jun 17, 2008, 11:51 PM

This is completely off-topic, and this whole thread gone in wrong direction, i don't like that. If someone have to say anything on Fran's thread, go ahead.

jem_is_bi

Jun 18, 2008, 12:35 AM

After threel pages, discussions often change.
What is wrong with that?
She has made her writing is her signature.
It demands that she be consider as separate from others.
Long posts can be painful to decipher. So I often don't.
I am sure she knows this causes many of us problems.
But, most that she posts is worth reading. That is why some of us complain.
I bet most all like her anyway.

BronzeBobby

Jun 18, 2008, 12:44 AM

Anyways for us Americans the whole debate is moot. This war with Iran is going to happen no matter who gets in office, and it's going to be awful. It will make the invasion of Iraq look like our invasion of Afghanistan. So I've given up on talking about terrible war is, I just want leaders who can execute them well.

csrakate

Jun 18, 2008, 12:51 AM

wolfcamp

Jun 18, 2008, 3:00 AM

The only thing I have to say about gays in the military is that if countries want to wage war without a draft, they shouldn't be picky about their enlistees.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to hate war but love the soldier. People enlist in armies for a variety of reasons, but probably the least noble of those reasons is to kill someone.

We Americans are so smug that the whole world speaks our language, and we get indignant if they don't. But I think that indignation is ill placed. We do business with many countries because the people in those countries make the effort to communicate with us. They have the advantage, not us. They can function in both our world and theirs, but we can't always say the same. We are limited, they are not. I admire people like Dagni who speak multiple languages. I think it would be very cool to strike up a conversation with her in Finnish. There was a time when I could speak a little German, but it has been so long since I practiced that I have lost it. Too bad.

I don't mind trying to decipher franspeak, and I can't think of a time when I couldn't understand what she was saying. Stepping out of my comfort zone keeps my mind agile. It keeps me from getting old.

darkeyes

Jun 18, 2008, 8:53 AM

God.. me dus luff this site sumtimes... lil innocuous post bout a wee advance a gay rites for sum brit peeps an we end up goin through the gambit of so many otha things.. respect..lakka respect..history of rites an freedom.. the military.. 2 b or not 2 b... pacifism..an lotsa otha things.. an now how me talks in ere.. an a few lil twists bout that... an suddenly me seems 2 b flavour a the month.. bad or gud or indiff..u lot can decide wich is as it shud b... All me can say is woteva ya view its gud wiv me... sure me disagrees wiv lotsa ya.. that will neva change... in a way tho how me speaks in ere has detracted from the questions an thots me wos tryin 2 provoke ansas 2.. in a way thats not gud.. me has always been awara that.. but its neva been me point simply 2 provoke questions for ther own sake.. but 2 try an get peeps 2 absorb points me wonts 2 make... yea..me knows this sounds contrary considerin the argy bargy bout me ritin... but think bout it... wud ratha hav haff a doz peeps take the time 2 work out jus wot me is sayin, ratha than wot me is not... by typin in standard english, wich me can.. an pretty well... an sumtimes even dus..me wud get precisely the same slaggins me gets by usin Franspeak for pretty much the same reason.. but summa ya, cos ya took the time 2 work out wot me wos sayin an ratha than wotya thot me wos sayin... wud kno betta jus wot me argument wos an wot me wos talkin bout ratha than wot sum peeps think me sayin... its the arrogance of individualism me sposes.. cos am nuthin if not an individual human bein.. tho hope not 2 arrogant..

Now lets knok this waya speakin in ere on the head 1ce an for all.. an 2 stop peeps like the luffly Zitta Twittrin on.. me do it in English.. soz not merican English.. cos lotsa words we spell diff an sumtimes use em 2 mean summat else...

In chat and .com I do not type in a Scots dialect in any way, shape or form. I type in something completely different. It is a contrived form of English whose origins does indeed lie in Text and is the standard way of communicating which my friends and I use when on line and in contact with one another. I have used it on this site since the very early days and intend to continue. Within Franspeak, there are in fact several diffrent dialects, as there are over a dozen of loving friends who themselves are individuals and have there own way of expressing themselves within the text. Its proper name is not in fact Franspeak, but Bootgirlspeak, which is the name we call ourselves (Gorgiebootgirls) after tne name of the area in which our commonly adored football team is based. Well not all, one or two dont like football, and a couple support lesser teams, but they cant help it.

The Scots language, for it does exist, bears little or no relation to Franspeak, and has a written and spoken form, within which are as with any language, numerous dialects. It is a language akin to English, yet seperate from it. It has survived three centuries of oppression and official disapproval by Government since the union of Scotland and England in 1707, and has never been taught in the schools of the nation to which it belongs since that date, and in fact historically children were given the severest punishments for speaking Scots in the playground.. Scots were made to feel inferior and ashamed because they did not speak English. It became the language of the working classes and of the countryside, the aristocracy and middle classes long since having abandoned their native tongue for something known as Scottish English, or even in many of the worst cases English English. Scots has in fact been watered down over the years because of the disapproval by the state and while it exists it has lost much of its vibrancy and many words have disappeared from the everyday vocabulary. It is however not a defunct language and remains the language of at east half of the population of which I am one. I speak Scots, not English, and am able to write it because of my fathers love of our native tongue, although I was taught to write English at school and it is a language I love. My partner speaks Scots English which is what I call "plummie". English speakers from the UK will know what I mean. Posh if you like. Although not that posh. Think Annie Lennox or Ewan McGregor and you about have it.

So please. No more Franspeak being Scots. It is not.

warmpuppy

Jun 18, 2008, 9:37 AM

I spent 20 years in the AF, with two tours in Vietnam. I will never forget, after returning to the states, how we were discouraged from wearing our uniforms in the community because of the hate. I was called a "baby killer" more than once during that time. Those of us who lived off base couldn't easily stop on the way home from work while in uniform just to pick up a loaf of bread.

I thought we were past that. I guess not.

CuddlyKate

Jun 18, 2008, 10:09 AM

*Falls of her seat in shock.* Frances explaining herself? In English too? Wonders will never cease. Maybe there is a God after all.;)

CuddlyKate

Jun 18, 2008, 10:14 AM

I am not plummy

darkeyes

Jun 18, 2008, 12:29 PM

I am not plummy

Didn callya "plummy".. me sed ya wer "plummie".. an rite gorge wiv it 2 me adds ere... :tong::bigrin:

still_shy

Jun 18, 2008, 12:35 PM

This is a completely random thought...but I like the way Fran writes. When I read it, I am forced to pay complete attention to what she says in order to make sure I don't miss anything :P And once you get through that, you will find that she always has something intelligent and worthwhile to say.

darkeyes

Jun 18, 2008, 7:02 PM

Hav been reely touched by summa the luffly things peeps hav sed in this thread.. from sum me knos jus how they thinka me but ther a few peeps me don kno 2 well that hav made me feel reely nice. It don matta wetha peeps agree wiv wot me sed or how me sed it.. wot mattas is peeps take time 2 try an undastand wy me thinks as me dus..an lotsa ya certainly do that.. me don say things normally 2 shock peeps.. jus 2 put ova an opinion..in the casa who won our freedoms a strong opinion wich me has cosa me knowledge a social an political history.. am 1st 2 admit military history aint a gr8 interest in itsel..but is insofar as so much of it affects the history of human kind an its social an political development. Its from ther me gets me opinions an knowledge a the historical role a the military, espesh that of the UK, in the social an poltical development of humanity an the achievement of our rites an freedoms. Othas amongya hav a diff persepective an me respects that opinion tho don expect me eva 2 agree wiv it...

Even harder an faster an so ingrained in me is me pacifism. Many don accept or undastand it.. thats fine.. me luff of humanity, of life in all its forms, an me respect an passion for this world in wich we liv, an its continued survival as a place wer life can thrive is summat that ther can b no middle way for me.. its all or nuthin... an the all is peace for all wer we can liv in harmony wiv each otha, yet retain our individuality an freedom 2 speak an think as we will.. an neva b afraida the nite.. wer peeps settle ther differences by talkin 2 each otha an not raisin a hand or a weapon in anger.. long way way me knows that.. but its me dream.. me passion.. an ritely or rongly..me believes its the kismet of humanity 2 get ther...

An the fact that in ere me speaks funny?? Shud b no big deal 2 ne of yas.. seems 2 upset sum peeps.. but thats the thing innit? For millenia we hav been killin an oppressin peeps who speak, think an r diff from ourselves.. bout time we, all the world ova learned the common language of humanity.... Humanity.

Hav sed me piece ova the las few days... ta all for wots been a fun an challengin time.. that goes for even the mos critical.. not gonna respond gain 2 ne more posts.. ta gain.. an hav fun!!! luffya!!

BronzeBobby

Jun 18, 2008, 7:17 PM

What I don't understand and what bothers me the most is that some of you who do not care for "franspeak" were so quick to jump on her integrity as a person by calling her a "daft tart" or belittling her intellect. I hardly think that is necessary and certainly is not in keeping with how one should approach a debate of any kind. As the rules state, flame the idea if you must, but not the person.

Just my :2cents:

Kate

Not so much, Kate. darkeyes knew she was posting an inflammatory and controversial opinion. You can't have it both ways, stirring up the hornet's nest and then claiming you can't be attacked.

darkeyes

Jun 18, 2008, 7:33 PM

Slag the idea ifya must.. attak me if ya wish.. hav neva put a bar on eitha.. me skin aint that thin... me posts 2 get a response, 2 make peeps think an hav a debate..not cos me sum holy untouchable cow..

Now that is me last post on this thread..am off 2 me bed.. nite x

gwsouth

Jun 18, 2008, 7:33 PM

Congratulations Darkeyes........you are so right.....

bigirl_inwv

Jun 18, 2008, 7:37 PM

That's a weak attempt at a back handed insult. Typical of frustrated intellectuals. You are no judge of intelligence, I'm not sure you're qualified to judge anything.

That said. She wanted to know why she wasn't receiving responses, a couple of us answered. Your contributions here are unnecessary.

Would have replied to this sooner...but I missed it.

I didn't realize I was an intellectual. I'll take that as a compliment, thanks.

It actually wasn't an insult to anyone in particular...but you seem to be offended by it...so I apologize if it struck a nerve with you. I never claimed to be a judge of intelligence, or anything else for that matter. Quite the opposite actually. I mean, if I can do it, I'm quite sure most other people can do it as well.

That said. My posts weren't directed at you. To be honest, they were directed at Zwitter. Who, in my opinion, could have used a bit more tact in saying why Fran hasn't gotten more replies.

And while my contributions may be unnecessary, hey, at least you can read 'em! :rolleyes:

jamieknyc

Jun 18, 2008, 7:57 PM

Even harder an faster an so ingrained in me is me pacifism. Many don accept or undastand it.. thats fine.. me luff of humanity, of life in all its forms, an me respect an passion for this world in wich we liv, an its continued survival as a place wer life can thrive is summat that ther can b no middle way for me.. its all or nuthin... an the all is peace for all wer we can liv in harmony wiv each otha, yet retain our individuality an freedom 2 speak an think as we will.. an neva b afraida the nite.. wer peeps settle ther differences by talkin 2 each otha an not raisin a hand or a weapon in anger.. long way way me knows that.. but its me dream.. me passion.. an ritely or rongly..me believes its the kismet of humanity 2 get ther...

Fran, you are entitled to your opinions, but if they had been your country's policy, you would have been making this post in German, and would be spending the night being interrogated for it at the Gestapo district headquarters in Edinburgh.

csrakate

Jun 18, 2008, 8:00 PM

Not so much, Kate. darkeyes knew she was posting an inflammatory and controversial opinion. You can't have it both ways, stirring up the hornet's nest and then claiming you can't be attacked.

And I understand that completely, Bobby and I don't deny the right of someone to disagree with her opinions...I have certainly done that myself several times...and goodness knows Fran doesn't need me to defend her or her convictions! LOL! What I was referring to were the insults slung at her over the way she types and speaks...that's all...Just doesn't seem fair to draw conclusions about someone over their way of speaking instead of focusing on the debate on the table. Kinda hits below the belt in my eyes.

Falke

Jun 18, 2008, 10:26 PM

And I understand that completely, Bobby and I don't deny the right of someone to disagree with her opinions...I have certainly done that myself several times...and goodness knows Fran doesn't need me to defend her or her convictions! LOL! What I was referring to were the insults slung at her over the way she types and speaks...that's all...Just doesn't seem fair to draw conclusions about someone over their way of speaking instead of focusing on the debate on the table. Kinda hits below the belt in my eyes.

Not really. We have seen that she can type in coherent English. However, she insists on typing like shes a teenager on a cellphone. This would be entirely ripped apart should she ever go to college and present a paper in such a manner! Further, even she admits that many of her own countrymen can't understand what she is typing! I just find it rather sad that a person of her age would insist on carrying herself in such a way. Whatever, to each their own.

NumberSix

Jun 18, 2008, 11:37 PM

Forrest Gump almost manages to sound smart and philosophical when he says that "Life is like a box of chocolates" line. Almost. Give him one of JFKs' or Martin Luther Kings' speeches to read, and it's not going to sound anything like either of them (or any other great speakers) said it. It's gonna sound like smart words in a retards' mouth.

Now I'm not saying darkeyes is a retard. But, being new and not knowing her, seeing the way she writes doesn't make me want to know her. I skip over most of her posts. I agree with Zwitter, it's sad. Especially since she sounds not only real smart, but also wise ... when she wants to :)

As for the original topic, I agree that the military is a necessary evil. But then, man is evil, so it's not really surprising that military forces are so needed :(

frenchvikki

Jun 19, 2008, 5:48 AM

Fran, you are entitled to your opinions, but if they had been your country's policy, you would have been making this post in German, and would be spending the night being interrogated for it at the Gestapo district headquarters in Edinburgh.

I agree with you that it is most likely that she would be interviewed in Gestapo headquarters at some time if she persisted with her ideology and principles. However I do part with you about the language in which she would post were she allowed to even post her opinions. It is more than likely her schooling would involve learning to speak German and and this she would no doubt speak fluently however reluctantly.

It is surprising how native languages survive in the face occupation in the face of all the pressures which occupation create. In this country the British native languages survived quite well throughout the Roman occupation. Even after the waves of germanic invasions by the Angles and Saxons after the Romans left, although they did become peripheral to the west of Britain. The Brythonic Welsh or Cymric language remains quite vibrant in Wales and even after the Norman conquest, French did not take over as the language of the English. Rather it was the invader who was absorbed into mainstream Engish life in time and spoke English. After centuries of English and British occupation Erse remains quite alive in Ireland even though the majority of Irish speak English as a first language. Erse itself did supplant the native Celtic languages of Scotland in the north and west of Scotland, and in the East the Anglic languages introduced after the invasions of the Angles evolved into what we now call Scots and eliminated all but the most residual memory of those ancient British tongues. The success of Scots and more recently English, have themselves pushed Erse to the peripheries of the western Highlands and Islands of Scotland which gives some credence to your statementand worse,no trace of the ancient Brythonic and Pictish tongues exist in Scotland save for some place names an a few residual words in Scottish English, Scots, local dialects and place names. Those languages disappearing took many centuries however and it is unlikely your scenario would occur in the space of 60 years.

Elsewhere in the world, after two centuries of British rule Indians still spoke their various languages and dialects by the time the British left, even although English is spoken by many principally the upper and middle class Indians, they themselves also retain their native tongue. Throughout the old British Empire this is repeated. Malaysia, Burma, Africa. The list is endless. Maori's still speak their own language as do many aboriginal Australians. Similarly many in South and Central America still retain their ancient Inca and Mayan and other languages even if, just like the native North Americans and English they also speak the language of their conquerors, Spanish, just as many of the indigenous peoples of Brazil retain their own native tongues in the face of pressure from Brazilian Portuguese.

I would agree that wherever there has been an occupier language evolves to take account of that occupation, sometimes dastically but often less so. Languages do disappear and will continue to do so for various different reasons not all to do with invasion and occupation. I do not accept that occupation by an invader necessarily means the extinction of the language of the occupied. It will however mean great changes are in time inevitable.

CuddlyKate

Jun 19, 2008, 8:36 AM

I have often gently chided Frances for the way she uses language on this site and elsewhere on the web. I do believe like others that it detracts from the value of her arguments. Yet I know her reasons for arguing in the manner she does and respect them while in no way ever coming close to agreeing. She is nothing if not an eccentric and slightly crazy individual who is worth more than the increasingly nasty, dismissive and intolerant statements used by some in their posts.

I have noticed increasingly an intolerance, not just of Frances, but of others too, and it makes for unedifying reading. She encourages criticism of anything she says and does because she believes that is how the world should be. Equally she believes in freedom of expression meaning not just what can be said but how it can be said.

Of course I will defend my partner when I think there is need. I know she would and has me. So I do now, because it seems to me that people some on site are so intolerant of the uniqueness we all share, and so full of their own self importance they feel the need to humiliate others in the eyes of the world. I have warned Frances of this and will again no doubt have to again.

Those of you who have been so dismissive of her claim never to read her posts and yet it appears to me that you so obviously do. That is why her way of addressing the site is attacked. It is easier than attacking the message. It is born out of selfishness, intolerance and laziness. Deny it all you wish you will not convince me otherwise.

Frances has beliefs she wishes to share with the world. They are deeply rooted, but she would not force them on anyone for the world. She merely wishes that people care enough about others to take the time to listen and more, listen to what they have to say, not self-censor it to what they wish others to think they said.

Read her or not is the choice of every individual, but forget the pettiness of how she uses language. If you have an issue with her or anyone else, make that issue one of substance and not of intolerant and crass irrelevance.

Frances does have a certain self importance herself which can be slightly irritating, yet unlike some she takes the time to argue on issues and not on personality.

Falke

Jun 19, 2008, 7:33 PM

I agree with you that it is most likely that she would be interviewed in Gestapo headquarters at some time if she persisted with her ideology and principles. However I do part with you about the language in which she would post were she allowed to even post her opinions. It is more than likely her schooling would involve learning to speak German and and this she would no doubt speak fluently however reluctantly.

It is surprising how native languages survive in the face occupation in the face of all the pressures which occupation create. In this country the British native languages survived quite well throughout the Roman occupation. Even after the waves of germanic invasions by the Angles and Saxons after the Romans left, although they did become peripheral to the west of Britain. The Brythonic Welsh or Cymric language remains quite vibrant in Wales and even after the Norman conquest, French did not take over as the language of the English. Rather it was the invader who was absorbed into mainstream Engish life in time and spoke English. After centuries of English and British occupation Erse remains quite alive in Ireland even though the majority of Irish speak English as a first language. Erse itself did supplant the native Celtic languages of Scotland in the north and west of Scotland, and in the East the Anglic languages introduced after the invasions of the Angles evolved into what we now call Scots and eliminated all but the most residual memory of those ancient British tongues. The success of Scots and more recently English, have themselves pushed Erse to the peripheries of the western Highlands and Islands of Scotland which gives some credence to your statementand worse,no trace of the ancient Brythonic and Pictish tongues exist in Scotland save for some place names an a few residual words in Scottish English, Scots, local dialects and place names. Those languages disappearing took many centuries however and it is unlikely your scenario would occur in the space of 60 years.

Elsewhere in the world, after two centuries of British rule Indians still spoke their various languages and dialects by the time the British left, even although English is spoken by many principally the upper and middle class Indians, they themselves also retain their native tongue. Throughout the old British Empire this is repeated. Malaysia, Burma, Africa. The list is endless. Maori's still speak their own language as do many aboriginal Australians. Similarly many in South and Central America still retain their ancient Inca and Mayan and other languages even if, just like the native North Americans and English they also speak the language of their conquerors, Spanish, just as many of the indigenous peoples of Brazil retain their own native tongues in the face of pressure from Brazilian Portuguese.

I would agree that wherever there has been an occupier language evolves to take account of that occupation, sometimes dastically but often less so. Languages do disappear and will continue to do so for various different reasons not all to do with invasion and occupation. I do not accept that occupation by an invader necessarily means the extinction of the language of the occupied. It will however mean great changes are in time inevitable.

Well said, then again we would all get a Gestapo visit regardless. I think each of us is too outspoken one way or another and that would put us on their radar.

PlacentaJuan

Jun 21, 2008, 6:07 AM

Darkeyes can apparently just as easily type in standard english so everyone can read it yet she refuses to and she's a rather stupid woman who tries to be intelligent yet she wouldn't know intelligence, shock value, controversy, pacifism, and on top of it all she's a man hating dyke who seems to enjoy making her kept woman girlfriend CuddlyKate answer for her since she won't own up to her own foolish posts.

rissababynta

Jun 21, 2008, 2:36 PM

jamieknyc

Jun 22, 2008, 1:21 AM

Well said, then again we would all get a Gestapo visit regardless. I think each of us is too outspoken one way or another and that would put us on their radar.

That is not the point, nor what the other poster said.

My grabdparents were born in America, but I have lived most of my life in communities where everyone else except mysefl was either a Holocaust survivor or the children of Holocaust survivors, so I think I have a little perspective on the magnitude of the horror that was spared because others in Fran's country gave blood, sweat, toil and tears to prevent Nazi jackboots from goose-stepping through the streets of Edinburgh. And also, the pacifists of Britain and other western democracies fought every step of the way against resistance to Hitler.

jamieknyc

Jun 22, 2008, 1:23 AM

Well said, then again we would all get a Gestapo visit regardless. I think each of us is too outspoken one way or another and that would put us on their radar.

That is not the point, nor what the other poster said.

My grandparents were born in America, but I have lived most of my life in communities where everyone else except mysefl was either a Holocaust survivor or the children of Holocaust survivors, so I think I have a little perspective on the magnitude of the horror that was spared because others in Fran's country gave blood, sweat, toil and tears to prevent Nazi jackboots from goose-stepping through the streets of Edinburgh. And also, the pacifists of Britain and other western democracies fought every step of the way against resistance to Hitler.

ThatSubliminalKid

Jun 22, 2008, 6:46 AM

That is not the point, nor what the other poster said.

My grandparents were born in America, but I have lived most of my life in communities where everyone else except mysefl was either a Holocaust survivor or the children of Holocaust survivors, so I think I have a little perspective on the magnitude of the horror that was spared because others in Fran's country gave blood, sweat, toil and tears to prevent Nazi jackboots from goose-stepping through the streets of Edinburgh. And also, the pacifists of Britain and other western democracies fought every step of the way against resistance to Hitler.

You know that the Nazis killed people besides Jews right? They killed bi/gay men and women too who were not Jews.

jamieknyc

Jun 22, 2008, 1:43 PM

You know that the Nazis killed people besides Jews right? They killed bi/gay men and women too who were not Jews.

That is a myth, actually: gays were simply another category of sex offender, not treated differently from other criminals, which meant that like other prisoners of so-called 'German race,' they held privileged status in the camps. In fact, the 'pink triangles' were among the most feared members of the camp staff, especially to young men, since refusal to give in to their wishes meant certain death.

not only that, but ther was no comprehensive roundup of hoimosexuals, apart from those caught up in the normal police raids of the red-light districts of German cities, and even then, person charged with homosexuality were pardoned if they agreed to marry and father a German child. In fact, more homosexuals served in the SS and the Nazi party than were ever imprisoned in the camps.

Falke

Jun 22, 2008, 7:47 PM

That is a myth, actually: gays were simply another category of sex offender, not treated differently from other criminals, which meant that like other prisoners of so-called 'German race,' they held privileged status in the camps. In fact, the 'pink triangles' were among the most feared members of the camp staff, especially to young men, since refusal to give in to their wishes meant certain death.

not only that, but ther was no comprehensive roundup of hoimosexuals, apart from those caught up in the normal police raids of the red-light districts of German cities, and even then, person charged with homosexuality were pardoned if they agreed to marry and father a German child. In fact, more homosexuals served in the SS and the Nazi party than were ever imprisoned in the camps.

Do you have a source for this? I study history and have a particular interest in that era. I have read of known homosexuals being expelled out of the SS as well as the downfall of the SA due to rampant homosexual activity...that and mostly their being a unorganized rabble... amongst other things.

ThatSubliminalKid

Jun 24, 2008, 12:00 AM

That is a myth, actually: gays were simply another category of sex offender, not treated differently from other criminals, which meant that like other prisoners of so-called 'German race,' they held privileged status in the camps. In fact, the 'pink triangles' were among the most feared members of the camp staff, especially to young men, since refusal to give in to their wishes meant certain death.

not only that, but ther was no comprehensive roundup of hoimosexuals, apart from those caught up in the normal police raids of the red-light districts of German cities, and even then, person charged with homosexuality were pardoned if they agreed to marry and father a German child. In fact, more homosexuals served in the SS and the Nazi party than were ever imprisoned in the camps.

Actually no it's not a myth.

Dude, it's a concentration camp! It's not like it's a resort like club Med for you where you're feared and given "special status", if you're homosexual or a German citizen.

It sucks to be a prisoner there no matter if you're homosexual and not a Jew, or if you're just a Jew.

Please study up on your history before you post ignorant crap like you just did.