Drew - February 5, 2006 07:03 AM (GMT)
I'd really like to discuss this somewhere where people can all be civil, not make racist generalities about Arabs, and not take arguments completely out of context. I think this is a good forum for that. I'll start. What the fuck was that Danish newspaper thinking? Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should. I agree with the arguments you made, Eral, and would like to talk about it further. The situation has turned into a real fire keg, now. I find it no surprise when considering that not only are Muslims constantly having their religous rights trounced (France forcing muslim girls to remove their head coverings in the name of "secularism" even though they still allowed the wearing of crucifixes) but their religion is being mocked every where they turn. Muslims are getting it on all fronts, and the Western world wonders why they are so upset? :blink:
I'm not trying to say that it's OK to burn buildings, make death threats, or protest holding up signs saying "We'll show you the real holocaust" but these poor people are second class citizens in every country they live, and their nations have even lower bearing on the world stage. The western world needs to own up to it's own culpability in the firekeg that is the Middle East. Most of the problems that exist today stem from the fact that we put the people who are currently in power in power. We (the western world) are directly to blame for nearly everything that has gone wrong in the Middle east over the last 70 years. We colonised them and hand-picked many of the people leading the nations. In other words, WE GAVE THEIR DICTATORS THEIR JOBS!!!!!
The American CIA is largely responsible for Saddam being in power in Iraq, and the only reason Kuwait is it's own country is that when England gave Iraq it's independence it still wanted to keep a "shipping port". They naturally chose the most oil-rich portion of the land as their "shipping port". Saddam's claim that Kuwait should be part of Iraq (the reason he invaded Kuwait) is a commonly held sentiment in the arab world to this day (not to mention that the US actually told Iraq that we didn't care if they invaded Kuwait.....but then the Saudis we buy most of our oil from started bellyaching.... ) since it was part of the nation before England decided to colonise it. Ask an Iraqi how old his nation is and he won't tell you Iraq is less than a century old. He'll tell you that Iraq is 5,000 years old. We failed to recognize how their culture views the world. We really fucked up. Anyway, I think I've digressed enough. Sorry about ranting.
icelus - February 5, 2006 06:09 PM (GMT)
GTFO AND GO TO CANADA
Drew - February 5, 2006 07:17 PM (GMT)
Canada isn't an option. They make a big deal out of being independent but the only reason they are is that, back in the '80's England decided that they no longer needed the Queens approval to modify their constitution. They also like Curling
. You just can't trust people that like curling. Canada sucks. And I'm tired of their fucking geese.For those that wonder (Eral), no, I don't hate Canada. Far from it. When I finish school, my wife and I would love to get a chance to move up to Vancouver.
Guest - February 5, 2006 07:58 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Drew @ Feb 5 2006, 07:03 AM)|
| I'm not trying to say that it's OK to burn buildings, make death threats, or protest holding up signs saying "We'll show you the real holocaust" |
Yes. I have enormous difficulty sympathising with people who get riled up over religion. Riot about something that matters, please.
Drew - February 5, 2006 08:22 PM (GMT)
That doesn't quite work, though. Religious people are insulted when you tell them that religion doesn't matter or, even worse, you purposefully insult their religion. Religion matters to religious people and they have a right to that opinion.
Regullus - February 5, 2006 08:33 PM (GMT)
|The American CIA is largely responsible for Saddam being in power in Iraq...|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
The US mainly became interested in SH in the early 80s as a secular counterpoint to Iran. The Baathist party came to power in 1968 and SH seized power in 1978(?).
|Saddam's claim that Kuwait should be part of Iraq (the reason he invaded Kuwait) is a commonly held sentiment in the arab world to this day (not to mention that the US actually told Iraq that we didn't care if they invaded Kuwait.....but then the Saudis we buy most of our oil from started bellyaching.... ) |
This was my initial understanding too but what was under dispute was an oil field on the border of Kuwait and Iraq that did indeed have a longish history of dispute. Glapsie (spelling?) did tell SH that the US would not involve itself in a border dispute.
SH demanded 8 or 9 billion from the Kuwaitis as a penalty for underselling oil and the Kuwaitis were advised by the US to use this payment as a bargaining chip. If SH had simply seized the oil field as opposed to marching into Kuwait and deposing the Kuwaiti rulers, there probably would not have been a GW1.
Privately, most Arab states were concerned that SH would continue his outward expansion, if successful. It has been alleged that the US tricked the Saudis with doctored satelite photos of Iraqi build-up on the Saudi border. I find it doubtful that the Saudis would have been unaware of troop build up on their borders. In other words, if the US tricked the Saudis, the Saud government were a co-conspirator, imo.
As to the question of cultural sensitivity, I find myself conflicted. On the one hand, if a Christian is offended, it is backward and peculiar. If a Muslim is insulted, we are being insensitive. I once said to an acquaintance that I found clitorectomies to be appalling and she looked at me with horror and said it was their CULTURE! I said, "So?"
If Bex's Danish friend is to be believed, the situation has been manufactured for political gain by the imans. Or the situation has been manufactured by the US in order to make Muslims unpopular.
I find myself somewhat perplexed with the idea that non-Western countries are consistently manipulated by the West and have no responsibility for their social ills or governments. I find such a stance a form of reverse racism.
I think at some point in time, colonialism, oppression, etc, by another nation to explain another nations' ills becomes a misguided argument. For an example, at some point in time I think to truly understand a country's ills, one must ask the question whether or not the country or its leadership has something to do with its ill.
This is obviously not a racist question but a thoughtful question on a country's evolution.
Drew - February 5, 2006 09:13 PM (GMT)
Kuwait was also cross-drilling into Iraqi land.
I'm not trying to deny the culpability of the Middle East for their own actions, but merely trying to point out that we wouldn't be having the problems we have today in this region had we not colonised them and set up corrupt dictators when we left. The problems we have with the leaders of their nations are our own fault since we, uh, gave those leaders the jobs.
Most of our policy toward the Middle East is still, unfortunately, based on cultural misconceptions even now. Only a tiny minority of Arab nations (less than a fifth) are theocratic in nature, yet we take the words of a few extremist Imams (often these extremists purporting themseleves to be religous figures aren't even Imams and do not have the authority to actually make fatwas) and the very existence of a few theocracies as representative of the entire Arab world. This misconception only serves to weaken the status of the Arab world in the international community. We blame them for having the problems that we indirectly (sometimes directly) created while denying our own culpability in this mess. That just isn't fair.
Eral - February 5, 2006 11:12 PM (GMT)
I think there are two issues here: freedom of speech vs respect for cultural/religious sensitivity, and Western Imperialism vs Islamic Fanatics.
The first one is the mistake the Danish editor made - I read an article saying the reason he published the cartoons was to show an illustrator there would be no problems illustrating a children's book about Mohammed: boy, was he wrong about that. That is one book that is going to stay unillustrated for some time now.
I haven't seen the cartoons, all I know is the particularly offensive one showed Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Now I don't know if the fuss arises from drawing Mohammed at all, or if the suggestion that he might have blown people up is the problem. I have heard complaints about both. This one I believe has been addressed by the editor apologising. I think that non-Muslims should be able to draw Mohammed because they don't believe he can't be represented. Same way they don't have to observe the religious rituals of any religion they don't follow. I think it is respectful to avoid ridiculing Mohammed, but that goes for anyone else's beliefs. Apologising for the offence should settle it.
When Christians object to Jesus being depicted, we usually dismiss them because we don't have an embargo on drawing him. Also, because our culture usually allows for publication of different views- we accept it as important to the health of our society. (And that whole circumcision=culture means accepting horrendous treatment of women as long as it's always been a tradition. I don't think so. I accept that headscarves and covering are not seen as a problem by some women. Mutilation ain't exactly the same thing.) Obviously, Muslim societies don't all do that.
Now we come to the second argument- how much of this uproar is chest-beating at Evil Westeners, the Imperialist disrespecters? Is it just an opportunity for radical Islamicists to gain support for sharia law and the cultural practices that give the imams a great deal of control over their society? Maybe it's going to make a restless population more supportive of their governments - maybe it will enable those governments to crack down further on dissidents - Islam is under attack everywhere, etc. The Iranian President was claiming yesterday it was a Jewish-American conspiracy - smells like opportunism to me. I think the burning buildings is just an expression of frustration - the Chinese did the same thing over the Japanese schoolbooks. Whoo-hoo - let's go trash something. In Palestine in particular there isn't a lot else to do for fun. Interestingly, in Lebanon, the Interior Minister had to resign because he didn't call out the police/army to protect the embassies that were attacked - and the large Christian segment of the country is not happy.
I would really like to hear from a Muslim person on it - preferably someone not calling for the death of the Imperialist running dogs over this unspeakable offence- so I could understand if ordinary people are still offended and what they see the resolution as. Here in Australia, the only people who have expressed their outrage, and warned that publishing the cartoons would cause riots, are leaders of very strict groups. I'm not hearing comments from moderates - but is that because no-one is asking them? Are the radicals the only ones we are interested in hearing from? Is the media helping to foster prejudices? Or reporting on the real problem - how do we accommodate two completely different views? Something's gotta give.
*This has to be record length post. I hope Ghrey doesn't find out.*
Guest - February 6, 2006 02:06 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Drew @ Feb 5 2006, 08:22 PM)|
| That doesn't quite work, though. |
On the contrary. People are quite entitled to make a fuss about whatever they want. Similarly, I'm entitled not to care. There are more pressing issues facing the world than who's insulted what religion, and I contend that everybody's time would be better spent discussing ways of solving global poverty than even considering why anyone's upset about some cartoon.
Drew - February 6, 2006 02:16 AM (GMT)
@Guest: Missing my point entirely. If you tell someone that his religion doesn't matter, you offend him. Offending people doesn't help anyone, so it is generally prudent to avoid purposefully doing that. If you want the Arab world to allow us to come in and help their poor, some degree of cultural sensitivity is necessary.
Eral - February 6, 2006 02:35 AM (GMT)
But Drew, they don't. "Helping the poor" is code to many people as "corrupting Islamic society". It'd be interesting to see if people in say, Afghanistan are protesting - and how they are expressing their feelings.
Indonesia did a rather perfunctory rant, supporting Islamic values which are under attack etc, etc and then said but now the Danish newspaper has apologised, everyone can stop talking about it. It's the most un-anti-West statement they've ever released.
You now, not one person representing a government has said, "ah for fuck's sake, get over it" or the political equivalent. I wonder what would happen if they did.
Drew - February 6, 2006 02:55 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Eral @ Feb 6 2006, 02:35 AM)|
| But Drew, they don't. "Helping the poor" is code to many people as "corrupting Islamic society". It'd be interesting to see if people in say, Afghanistan are protesting - and how they are expressing their feelings.|
They allow the Red Cross. Primarily because the Red Cross doesn't try to change their culture. Instead, they help their sick and wounded.
|You now, not one person representing a government has said, "ah for fuck's sake, get over it" or the political equivalent. I wonder what would happen if they did.|
Easy. OPEC would raise oil prices.
cliffette - February 6, 2006 07:38 AM (GMT)
Just a quick comment - please to be avoiding using the FONT SIZE = -XX function in future (though I'm not asking you to change your post, Drew) because it's really hard to read and just using a parantheses serves the same purpose in denoting an aside without making it hard to read.
(Or you could use italics to show that it is in sotto voice, though I'm not entirely sure what sotto voice is... but I'm sure I've read it in a stage direction somewhere.)
Guest - February 6, 2006 10:38 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Drew @ Feb 6 2006, 02:16 AM)|
| @Guest: Missing my point entirely. If you tell someone that his religion doesn't matter, you offend him. Offending people doesn't help anyone, so it is generally prudent to avoid purposefully doing that. If you want the Arab world to allow us to come in and help their poor, some degree of cultural sensitivity is necessary. |
No, no, I get your point precisely, and I still don't care. People are always going to get offended over stupid things. The important issue is deciding when you think it actually matters.
If I throw a huge fit because I find it offensive that you use the word "barnacles", you think I'm an idiot. Same difference.
Drew - February 6, 2006 06:23 PM (GMT)
@Cliffette: OK. But it was supposed to be hard to read.........
@ Guest: there's a big difference between offending someone on purpose and doing it accidentally. Yes, I'm well aware that misunderstandings happen and people will get offended by things that are, by your opinion (and mine), stupid. That doesn't mean we should go out of our way to offend people. The only areas where being purposefully offensive can actually accomplish anything are stand up comedy and talk radio.
Guest - February 6, 2006 07:03 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Drew @ Feb 6 2006, 06:23 PM)|
| @ Guest: there's a big difference between offending someone on purpose and doing it accidentally. Yes, I'm well aware that misunderstandings happen and people will get offended by things that are, by your opinion (and mine), stupid. That doesn't mean we should go out of our way to offend people. The only areas where being purposefully offensive can actually accomplish anything are stand up comedy and talk radio. |
And I fully agree that the paper is idiotic for publishing the material. However, I think that by even trying to consider their views you give vastly too much credit to the people who respond with rioting, intimidation and kidnapping--directed against those utterly innocent of the original insult. Anybody who exhibits that sort of response isn't the sort of person I care about in the slightest. I feel vastly greater compassion for the citizens of oppressive regimes who spend their weekends in more productive ways.
Drew - February 6, 2006 08:10 PM (GMT)
I'm a fan of being realistic. Obviously it isn't OK to riot, threaten, murder, etc. I never said that it was, but they have every right to be offended. If we published images of Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene, people would be every bit as offended. The difference is that, coming from a democratic society, we are used to getting offended. In a democracy you don't riot just because someone offended you. We wait until police officers beat a black man within an inch of his life on camera and get released with a slap on the wrist for that.
underdog - February 6, 2006 09:15 PM (GMT)
@regulus, Muichelle malkin was on tony snow's show this morning and said the same thing, that the Imans took worse pics back to the mideast showed them around to stir up
They also say it's blasphemy to depict mohammed, there's a lot of precident for depictions of him.http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
(A lot of images may take awhile to load.)
link pulled from herehttp://www.michellemalkin.com/
about 25% down the above page is this part
link to just the part for regulus http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004465.htm
about the lies that the imams took to the mideast.
edit added some more links and info.
Regullus - February 6, 2006 11:03 PM (GMT)
This is my opinion. I think Denmark may publish what it likes. I think its fine for people to boycott Danish goods, and protest outside of embassies, and write letters of protest. I think its great for people to be culturally sensitive and to try and behave themselves in an appropriate manner when visiting a foreign country. I would actually recommend that type of behavior.
I am perfectly willing to admit that while Europe was in the Dark Ages, Baghdad was the epicenter of learning. I will admit that the middle east has a long history but I do not and cannot agree with the behavior that has manifested over the cartoons.
I might feel differently if I felt that this was a peaceful, spontaneous outburst of indignation from oppressed people. It appears to have been fanned by leadership both religious and political.
These governments, religious leaders, are promoting the Protocol of the Leaders of Zion (correct title?), they are promoting an anti-modernity agenda. The are using the West to control their own agendas. This is not a complaint of the West, that is the voice of people within these countries. These are thoughtful people, writers, most famously Mahfouz (Egypt) and Rushdie.
Mahfouz was knifed at 81 years old, by a Muslim fanatic, Rushdie has been in hiding for years, not because of a minority but because of Khomeni of Iran. Why? Because they were critical of their countries rulers and religion.
This rioting is a politically manipulated response with historical roots and is not behavior created by the Danes or the West. As has been pointed out the middle east has a long history and this type of behavior is not historically unknown.
In no way am I trying to say the West has behaved in any way except self-interestedly in the ME or the rest of the world.
Eral - February 7, 2006 12:39 AM (GMT)
The papers today have published op-ed pieces by moderate Muslims. They say the outrage is both state-sanctioned ("Great, let's build up our Islamic credentials and let people burn a few buildings") and an expression of real feelings of offence. The extreme reactions are those of groups who want conflict, and therefore are suggesting beheading, etc, and the rest are from people who either feel marginalised as minorities (high unemployment and poverty) and now their religious integrity is being spat on, or that it really is rude to link Mohammed to terrorism. The second group are the ones engaged in boycotts and peaceful protests.
So, now I feel completely able to ignore the chest-beating and building burning, because those are people who don't deserve the time of day and are pushing a barrow that reeaally needs to be overturned. (Lookee, Sim is right again!)
I bet the boycotts etc will stop at exactly the time it starts hurting their own countries' economies.
For the second group, I'm sorry that they were offended by the cartoons (thanks underdog) and can now return to my original position that though the Danish paper had every right to publish the cartoons, but in view of the importance attached to it by ordinary people, the turban one, the virgin one and the women one shouldn't have been labelled "Mohammed" because I can see how they pushed buttons. The rest, not a problem - in fact that one with the sun in it is quite beautiful. The easy resolution is, non-Muslims can publish commentary on Islam, drawings of Mohammed as much as they like - ordinary rules apply. (Don't publish that which will obviously offend. [e.g. all Muslims=terrorists] If offense occurs, discussion takes place and greater understanding can be reached.)
Now why didn't jc let us talk about it at PPG? Good work Cliffette. Give jc a few tips on despotting.
Drew - February 7, 2006 02:19 AM (GMT)
Regellus is right on. I am still very much against going out of your way to offend people, though. Muslims have been having rights taken away right and left because the actions of a few terrorists and they really are a horribly treated minority. This is why I think a little compassion is in order. We racially profile them (in my country at least) have been known to hold them in custody without purpose and later release them with no explanation of why they were held (my country, again, right after 911), we have chipped away at their rights to practice their own religion (France most recently, although just about everyone is guilty of this) and when we insult the very core of their religious beliefs we just tell them to "deal with it". On the other hand, many European nations still occasionally arrest people for publishing materials offensive to Christianity. It happened most recently in Greece in 2005. A man was arrested and held for 6 months for releasing a comic depicting Jesus smoking a joint. He was later aquitted. When the muslim community sees this, they see a double standard. It's OK to make fun of Islam (and muslims shouldn't complain when it is done), but if you insult christianity there will at least be a public outcry and sometimes people even get arrested. Muslims have a right to their anger. They have a right to peacefully protest.
What I find myself wondering about is what would have happened is if the PM in Denmark agreed to meet with the 12 muslim ambassadors who asked to see him after the anti-islamic material was released. The EU even went so far as to characterise the amount of anti-islamic material released in Denmark with no action as discrimination. Anti-islamic sentiment has been high in Denmark for a long time, apparently. Judging by what the EU had to say to Denmark before this whole thing blew up I'd have to say that the cartoons were actually just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Now, please note that all I'm asserting here is that the muslims have the right to be angry and to peacefully protest. I'm certainly not defending death threats and blowing shit up.
Eral - February 8, 2006 05:41 AM (GMT)
Last year, after the English UnderGround bombings, Little Johnny had a Muslim Australians summit, (Australian Muslims summit?) where representatives from nearly all the Muslim groups throughout the country, met and discussed issues like racism, access, communication. It had a surprisingly helpful effect. Some of the very strict groups have become less radical in their speeches, more moderate groups are to the fore in the media, and there is less criticism of radical groups in the paper. We still have a LONG way to go , of course - and though the conference seemed to be just PR, it made a difference. Maybe Denmark wants to think about something like that. Giving people a means of communicating works.
Drew - February 8, 2006 06:16 AM (GMT)
Sometimes, all that is needed is a little PR. To Denmark's defense, they are not the melting pot society that the US and Australia are. They haven't dealt with racism on the level that our nations have and so they weren't sophisticated enough in their knowledge of race relations enough to understand the importance of diplomacy. If the PM would have heard the Ambassadors who wished to speak with him, then the Danish Muslim community wouldn't have felt so impotent, the Muslim community would have felt that they were heard, and this probably would have blown over. All the PM would have had to say is something along the lines of :
"I'm sorry this happened. I agree that this was in bad taste and is found offensive by a great many of our Muslim friends. Freedom of speech does allow them the privilege to say such things, but we would certainly hope that they will learn from this debacle and act more tastefully in the future. Losing the business of so many loyal subscribers is sure to hurt the paper, so I am sure they have learned their lesson."
There you go. The muslim community feels heard and freedom of the press is left intact.
Bex - February 8, 2006 07:07 AM (GMT)
This is again quoting an email from Sofie:
"I am pretty sure that the entire claim to "defending the right of a
free press", which the Jyllandsposten has in recent weeks spun this to
be all about, is an after-thought. I am pretty sure that the real
motivation for the printing of these drawings was to support the hard
line approach towards Arab immigrants and refugees which the Danish
government has been pursuing in recent years. I am 99% sure this was
never intended to be about anything but influencing Danish interior
politics - knowing Jyllandsposten as I do.
Jyllandsposten is the Danish paper which is furthest to the right
within the spectrum of papers which are still considered halfway
decent in Denmark - an unofficial outlet for the right-wing party
which is presently in charge in Denmark and their supporters.
Jyllandsposten voies the opinions of the Donald Rumsfeld's and Dick
Cheney's of Danish politics and the people who sympathize with them.
The debates we are all leading here about a free press and all this
are all well and fine - but believing that this was what
Jyllandspostens drawings were about in the first place shows an
oblivion to what role this paper fills in the Danish political
Eral - February 8, 2006 07:21 AM (GMT)
That must be why one of the cartoons states " the journalists of Jyllandsposten are reactionary provocateurs."
Well, they bit off more than they could chew, didn't they. How scary, that a newspaper wants to encourage dissension and conflict. I bet all the people who make cheese for sale in Saudi Arabia ain't going to be buying that paper anymore.
See how good this thread is? All sides of the story being shared. Good, isn't it, jc?
jcompton - February 8, 2006 06:37 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Eral @ Feb 8 2006, 07:21 AM)|
| See how good this thread is? All sides of the story being shared. Good, isn't it, jc? |
Keep up the good work.
Drew - February 8, 2006 08:56 PM (GMT)
In all seriousness, this turned into a big, anti-islamic, racist shit storm over at Sorcerer's Place
. (The link goes straight to the thread.) I'm not convinced that the same wouldn't have happened over at PPG or any "community". I think the reason that this thread has been successful is that this is a quiet forum with few people. No one that posts here with any regularity is going to get their panties in a bunch when someone respectfully disagrees with them. I started the thread here because I knew that everyone would be respectful of each other.
Bex - February 8, 2006 10:12 PM (GMT)
The thread at Planet Baldur's Gate has been fairly typical for a political discussion there. 23 pages (so far) of mixed news links, meaningful discussion, and spam. Not so much racism or flaming, probably at least in part because the two biggest racists I can recall have been banned. (One from all of Forumplanet, I believe for hacking-related offenses, and the other probably just from PBG, for posting hate speech, because it's against the rules and he'd been warned repeatedly.)
There's a "nuke 'em all" response from Buck, but this is predictable, and basically Buck's response to every thread where "vote beer" or "*Buck puts his feet up and cracks open a tinnie*" isn't an option. (Buck could be replaced by a bot and nobody would notice.)
I think Drew is correct that there are maybe a dozen people who regularly visit here, and they can be counted on to not get in a lather, so discussion here is likely to remain calm and civil. But I think that disallowing such discussion pre-emptively is a dubious move, because it lumps all of us together as people who cannot be trusted to voice their opinions in a meaningful way, or shown the respect to allow us to try, and that, to me, is far more offensive than any idiotic bigoted comment on a message board could ever be.
jcompton - February 9, 2006 02:08 AM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Bex @ Feb 8 2006, 10:12 PM)|
| But I think that disallowing such discussion pre-emptively is a dubious move, because it lumps all of us together as people who cannot be trusted to voice their opinions in a meaningful way, or shown the respect to allow us to try, and that, to me, is far more offensive than any idiotic bigoted comment on a message board could ever be. |
Sorry, but the way the holy month of December 2005 went on PPG pretty well convinced me that it wasn't the right place for religious discussions. One month wasn't enough to make me forget, or to change my mind.
I can just refer religious discussion here instead of to Yahoo if you'd prefer.
cliffette - February 9, 2006 02:21 AM (GMT)
Eral - February 9, 2006 07:03 AM (GMT)
You're so bitter, jc. If I didn't know that deep down, really, really deep down, you are quite fond of us, I'd be wounded at your difficulties getting over that extremely short period of bad behaviour. Especially when we said sorry.
Oh and good to see you breaking your vow of silence.
Drew: Yeah, but at least the thread got to 7 pages.
I think it's inevitable that a topic like this attracts people who have a narrow view of the world and aren't on the Net to widen it. But if you want to find out what people know about stuff, and to hear what they think, that's the risk you run.
Drew - February 9, 2006 09:25 AM (GMT)
It's still going......and the consensus is that all muslims are hippocrites. They completely ignore the huge ammount of pre-existing anti-Islamic sentiment. They also completely ignore Denmark's snubbing of 10 Muslim ambassadors. Nearly every post I've made in that thread has been made to remind everyone that they aren't getting attacked by all Muslims, or even most Muslims. Racist slurs go unchecked. I don't think I will visit Sorcerer's Place again.
jcompton - February 9, 2006 03:05 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Eral @ Feb 9 2006, 07:03 AM)|
| You're so bitter, jc. |
Generally, yes. Specifically in this case, only because some of you don't seem to appreciate that...
I don't think I will visit Sorcerer's Place again.
...this is precisely the sort of thing that I'm trying to avoid.
Regullus - February 9, 2006 05:06 PM (GMT)
First I would like to thank Underdog for the links. I must admit to being quite fond of Zombie's page. I am sorry I forgot to thank you in my previous post. :)
I have to confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the repeated referance to the religion thread at ppg. As I recall the thread was mainly about the accuracy of biblical translation, and the other topics that derailed were about anything but religion. No? I am find that I am unwilling to go back and re-read the topics.
jc - I am saddened to hear that life is generally lived in a haze of bitterness, and equally distressed to hear that the gentle twitting by Eral at your Dwarven Moderatorial style has been distressing to you. :( I hope these feelings are not affecting your work on the new game.
One other thing, regarding the religious links at yahoo. I assume that you are aware that the link takes you, eventually, to a group called llamahumpers. :o
To be slightly on-topic, I read an article about how Danish flags are selling like hot cakes in Gaza. I always thought the majority of flags used in protests were homemade. Nice to know the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well.
icelus - February 9, 2006 07:31 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Regullus @ Feb 9 2006, 10:06 AM)|
| One other thing, regarding the religious links at yahoo. I assume that you are aware that the link takes you, eventually, to a group called llamahumpers. :o |
Someone better warn Bons.
Drew - February 9, 2006 11:45 PM (GMT)
@JC: I completely understand why you opted to preemptively close that thread in PPG. I actually agree with it, especially after seeing what happened with the thread at SP. Something worth mentioning, though, is that PPG really doesn't have to worry as much about losing it's mod consumers. There is absolutely nothing I ever need from Sorcerer's Place, since they don't actually make any mods. If the forum pisses me off enough I just won't go back, because they offer absolutely nothing that I can't get elsewhere. PPG, on the other hand, makes mods that people want to play and aggressively updates them as well. I doubt anyone is going to stop playing Virtue or downloading other PPG mods because somebody said something offensive in EFCB. They probably just won't post in the forum anymore. (Then again, that's probably reason enought to be cautious.)