Saturday, September 30, 2006

Which Sci/Fi Character are You? Take TEST

My personality came out as:Galadriel
Possessing a rare combination of wisdom and humility, while serenely dominating your environment you selflessly use your powers to care for others.

Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.

Galadriel is a character in the Middle-Earth universe. You can read more about her at the Galadriel Worshippers Army.

Which Fantasy/SciFi Character Are You?

Link to more of her personality at Galadriel.
Take the test at: Which Fantasy/SciFi Character Are You?

First I would like to thank Bill for providing the link and bringing up an interesting profile analyser. My character profile seems like a nice character with high moral standards but am not that familiar with the story and she fits into it.

Since my answers did not change for question:
You try to be guided and ruled by your:
* thoughts and logic.
* feelings and sentiments.

You are more likely to enjoy:
* a personal discussion of feelings.
* a sophisticated philosophical debate.

I am assuming that characters from the original Star Trek show are not included as possibilities. Before I took the test and even after I feel I am most closely like James T. Kirk. As Kirk's character was more or less a compilation of the personalities of both Spock and McCoy, he would have trouble answering the above two questions. Kirk also tried to use the best of both sides of his brain to accomplish tasks. He most often was not the one 'doing' but trusted and relied on others to get nearly every thing done.

Although when needed he rose to what needed to be done single handedly. As in the episode Arena where Captain Kirk fights in a bare-handed duel with the lizard-like, alien captain of another ship.

Of course this is not meant as a criticism, but I do want to give my 2 cents worth. I have never gotten into the story of Star Trek: The Next Generation even though I thoroughly enjoyed the original as well as Deep Space Nine and Voyager and Enterprise (have not had a chance to see all the episodes). I always felt the characters in The Next Generation were more or less cardboard cutouts that had no personality. They were nothing more than stereotyped characters in a Sci-Fi plot.

And the one episode that made me turn off the episode as well as the serious was an episode where a couple of businessmen were unfrozen from the 20th century (don't know name). Captain Jean-Luc Picard explained that there was no longer need for money and that there was no longer any wants and needs not fulfilled. This is more liberal thoughts IMO. Not within 5 minutes he gets upset with the men and orders them off 'his bridge'. So I felt the character had portrayed himself as a hypocrite. It is not a socialist perfection in the perfect because some still 'own' more than others. Once there is a have and have not grouped then there is not an equal division of resources.

I know it seems like making a mountain out of molehill, but not even holding to the beliefs in a 5-minute span as well as the obnoxious character of William Riker makes me not enjoy The Next Generation.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Letter to Bill King.

Dear Bill:

I have written several letters so far and have not received any message back so I am not sure what to say now. It is so much easier if I was asked questions than to try and guess what others are thinking from such vague reasons for my banning as in:
"Dear Ronald Rutherford,

The site administrators have removed your access rights:

Disresepect towards fellow members both on and off the board."
I personally believe that I have shown more respect for other board members than they have me. Of course I wish all members to be able to come back but are we not allowed to 'defend' ourselves from others that attack us. I was 'psychoanalyzed' for over a year by various board members and felt I was not allowed to respond in kind. Thus I expressed my feelings in a semi-private venue with out any fanfare or undue attention drawn toward my posts. Others felt in their interest to broadcast such things. If you want exact quotes of personal attacks on me or other 'conservative' I am sure I can find them.

There is so much more I could say, but without any further explanation or questions about what has transpired I am at a loss for words. So I am asking to have my access rights reinstated. If there are certain conditions I must do first, then I am willing to talk/discuss about them.

Ronald Rutherford

Monday, September 18, 2006

Letter from Loganthor.

To all:
It has now been one week since my banning and even though I have sent repeated emails appealing my ban, I have never heard from anyone. One can only assume the being ignored equates to saying “No you may not be welcomed back”. Everyday I watch from the sidelines as things are said about me and the events leading up to my banning. I did make a deceptive maneuver and logged on as my wife’s name Ginell and made a total of three posts. One was on the Hateful and Harassing asking Usha to please review the discussion she had with loganthor(me) and try to look at it from his (my) perspective. Moments after I posted that message the thread was moved to the Syops area. To my humor, Miles (using a sock puppet) posted moments later with his new name and Both Sue and Thom responded to him instantly. Knowing that both Admins were looking at the same thread I opted to come clean and appeal my banning. Again I failed to gain closure with a Yes, No or Maybe answer. I have NOT posted to this site since.

I feel terrible that my actions started the ball rolling that caused the removal of the thread and the subsequent implosion by some of its members. Some people have empathized with me regarding the blatant hypocrisy that permeates this board. (Thanks Jason for your Apology Post). Some of the worst offenders of the rules continue today while conservative opinions are scorned and belittled. This hypocrisy came at me in many forms daily, the blatant name calling and the far more annoying, subtle attacks on my character in the form of critical analyzes of my limited intellectual comprehension abilities or psychoanalyzes of my “patriarchal” home life. The last Discussion I had involved Andger, Usha and myself, I was relentlessly hounded by Andger (moderator) because of an exchange we had on a different thread and Usha (moderator) choose to single me out for public chastising. To me and my perspective this was a prime example of what goes on everyday on the board and a perfect example for the Hateful and Harassing thread. Me (the conservative) takes the endless chastising for a fights I do not start. Twice during the course of the discussion I made two attempts to exit from this line of discussion. One was to get back on topic the other was an outright ending of it. Each time Andger (moderator) ignored these attempts and continue his assault. I should have taken the lead and just walked away, but As Sue stated on the same thread, “ you have the right to defend yourself” and I have never run from a fight. I do process the transcripts of this exchange and have offered it in one of the three appeal letters sent to both Sue and Thom. If anyone would like to review the exchange for their own peace of mind, please contact me.

Alas, I have made the statement that if I can not have my old name back I will not be coming back. I do believe that I was unfairly single out for public ridicule and punishment to make some grander point that the board is starting to crack down on the undesirables. Outside the public domain the reason stated about my banning by that of Usha and that of the Administrator do not equate to the same thing.

Usha says:
“Loganthor was banned because of deliberate disruption of this thread and severe and defiant harassment of both Andger and myself.”

Administration posted only the posting I posted to Miles as the reason for my banning. Nothing to do with Andger or Usha.

In one of my Appeal letters, I asked for clarification of the reason I was banned. The Miles Post was not a reason as indicated by the then yet unknown rules of the supposed Rule I violated. I have never received a response to that request. As some can attest to in many of my discussions, I am all for rules and accept them a boundaries. I also accept the consequences of violating those rules. What I have a real problem is when those rules are unfairly applied because the bias and hypocrisy of those chosen to guard those things. The moderators of this site have chosen to both be the agitators and the punishers to which most people should find patently unfair.

I bid ado; It appears that the people in power do not wish me to be here. Whether it for my politics, my less then communication skills, my interpersonal dynamics with the other posters or my slightly crude sarcastic humor. What ever the reason was, those in charge of this board not only wish to keep it from you, they also wish to keep it from me as well. It has been mostly a pleasure conversing with everyone I have had the pleasure to converse with. I have learned much in my time here. In can type better, communicate better, my spelling is still a bit shaky but I have learned to better articulate my thoughts. For that single reason it has all been worth it.

Anybody wishing to communicate with me can contact me at CTE_International (at) msn (dot) com.

Our new marketing campaign!

So, it's your first kiss and several questions might come to mind:

Is it the right time?

Is anyone watching?

Does your partner even want to?

Is your breath fresh?

And... Should you use some tongue?

Then you lean in and just go for it!!!


Saturday, September 16, 2006

To Thom Hartmann (et al):

I again ask for my posting privileges to be reinstated.
I think that it was unfair that my IP address was banned after Miles posted something on Thom's board and not based on my actions.
It seems grossly unfair that I was first held to higher standards than others as well as secondly held to rules that I was not informed of or agreed to.
It would be at least fair that I was given a more detailed explanation of the reasons for banning. We should at least have an opportunity to discuss the actions that have taken us to this situation.

Ronald Rutherford

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Part II of You Meet All Kinds on the internet.

Dear Thom:

I will take it that since I have not recieved a reply back that you will not reconsider my case.
While I see disrespect from many board members including some admins, I see no one banned or even warned except Miles.
Which is why I write today.
I think if you honestly want debate between conservatives and liberals or more precisely between different points of view then banning is just a form of censorship.
I actually wish that you reinstate Miles priveledges. I have no animosity to him or anyone on Thom's board and as such I do not wish bad things on basically good people.
While yes Miles was acting like a child whether it was deserved or not, he was making a point.
And he let his emotions for a time get out of hand. Don't we all take things a little personal from time to time? I don't see that he was given a warning. I can pull up the exact quotes by Sue N but clearly I didn't see a warning to Miles.

Which is also brings up Loganthor case. I don't believe that he was given a proper warning also.
Sue: I won't be doing a ban tonight.
Usha: This qualifies you for a ban.
The first seems to qualify as a sign that the actions did not warrant a ban, and the second can still be interpreted as her opinion on what qualifies as a ban but not by the admins.
Sue: Another issue that needs to be borne in mind: everyone has the right to defend themselves. If you ask someone not to talk to you in the forum, it is only fair that you do not say anything critical about them thereafter.
So was Loganthor not defending himself? I allowed myself to be attacked personally on countless times but according to the discussions I was allowed to "defend myself". Maybe it is only those that are liberal enough that get to defend themselves. I would hate to think that. And if Sue's remarks are correct then why is Ren now making remarks about me now?

So even if not for myself, I ask that you reconsider this group banning.
I think both members added to the board.

Ronald Rutherford

>From: Discussion Community
>To: Ronald Rutherford
>Subject: Discussion Community Membership Information
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
>Dear Ronald Rutherford,
>The site administrators have removed your access rights:
>Disresepect towards fellow members both on and off the board.
>Powered by eve community from

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Please stay a while.

I wish the following poster would leave an email or contact me at rdrradio1(x) msn dot com...
Anonymous said...

So they banned you, huh?

It's a shame I had to get myself banned to get the point across, but at least I took you with me.

I don't want to assume who this may be, but I welcome a dialogue with this person.
I promise I will never delete any message you write (unless you want). (Then again maybe cursing will not be allowed.)

Storm the Bastille!

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Dear Thom Hartmann:

Dear Thom Hartmann:

I wish to ask to have my posting privileges reinstated.
Under the present rules:
5. Banned User Procedure: A member who has been banned may email the Forum Moderator to apologize, to appeal the decision or to clarify. Once a Forum Moderator has taken action, He/She will decide to reinstate or not.

When I arrived at your dynamic and interesting forum, I learned quit early that if I was to stay there that expecting others to respect me was not something I would get. This is despite my always-maintaining respect for your board and you. I would often express my thanks to Thom for providing a site where people from such varied points of view can discuss issues and hopefully learn in the process. But recently there has been a push for censorship. It is being disguised as “respecting others”. After being called an idiot and every name imaginable including monkeynerd on countless times and told to fuck off on many occasions, I don’t know how people can pretend to say they are respectful. I could go on how others showed disrespect to me, but then the question is when have I ever shown disrespect to other board members? I feel that I have shown great respect to all board members. If others misinterpreted my intentions then that is their concern. For those that I felt did not deserve respect, I would ignore them no matter how many lies and insults they would aim at me on a personal basis. Here Registered Members: 10000
Is an example of trying to show honor to what you as creator and provider of the board as well as all the board members have worked to accomplish? Instead of having a chance to discuss our accomplishments others took it as attacks on me. I can go through each post, but I think you will see that I made a statement and from there everyone jumped on me. To me the thread was meant as:
“I for one, want to thank Thom Hartmann for sponsoring this board. Thanks.”
It is also worth noting that the rules including the new rules do not include that members have to have “respect” toward other members.
And now that I am barely gone someone wrote this:
“Loganthor has recently introduced what amounts to a problem that one might call "expansio ad absurdum" where he took a simple concept and expanded it into a "monsters under the bed syndrome" that might occur with toddlers in a nursery school, not with adults who want to have a reasonable discussion about issues without some of the extremes that go with it; the result was what you called "amateur dramatics" with the other voices chiming in (or piling on) as well, like Rutherford and his faux apology comment to Andger.”
It was not a faux apology to Andger. I was asking whether Andger was going to apologize for calling Loganthor a ‘boy’.
And so according to the reason for banning is:
Disrespect towards fellow members both on and off the board.

So I disagree with this, but if it would make it better I would be willing to state an apology.
It has also been widely indicated that a warning would come first before being banned. I was not granted a chance before being banned.

Ronald Rutherford

P.S.: When I first entered the world of blogs and forums, etc, I saw others that hid behind fake names and pseudo personalities. I thought about what personality I wanted to present to the world and I choose that if I was honest with the world I would be honest with those I meet. Just like your onscreen name is also your name.

P.S.S.: I have been thinking that if the board is suppose to be receptive to other points of view then the Administrators should show that diversity. Before being banned, I thought it would be good if at least one administrator was of conservative bent. Then if conservatives got out of line someone could be able to “interpret” the situation and suggest what should be done and not the least be able to talk to the offending member from someone that they are more likely to respect.
I have been an administrator before and would love such a chance at your forum.

Monday, September 11, 2006

"Authoritarian Tattletale"

The above title "Authoritarian Tattletale" appears to be the first time that it has been used in that combination according to Yahoo and Google searches. Let me start off with a basis of understanding.

The term may also be used to describe the personality or management style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building consensus.

One who tattles on others; an informer or talebearer.
a talebearer or informer, esp. among children.

So my creation here is to describe a person that while he/she does not have direct control such as a person in authority, he uses authority to control others.

What made me think in these terms was interactions between myself and some liberals at Thom's Forum and most specifically the thread Hateful or harrassing messages. Instead of the commentators dealing with differences in opinion, they have resorted to claiming that they are being harassed and want adminstrators to "protect" them from other peoples opinions. Well of course that is not their stated position, the stated position is more closely stated as:
So let's say someone has reached a point where he or she doesn't want to communicate with someone, has specifically told the poster that, and has defined what they would consider to be harassment if the other person continues. Does this new rule system and the engagement of moderators and administrators mean that if the recipient of further "abusive" postings uses the RTPB button the case will be reviewed in some way? What then? Does the abuser get a warning?
That assessment implies the feeling of being harassed is left up to the determination of the person being harassed. I don't know if anyone sees the importance of that, but I find it very important to the character of this board. By allowing the individual to determine their own limits, we have a greater potential for a self actuated interactivity rather than activity determined and defined by an authority. This is radical in a world so deeply steeped in authoritarian principles. For some folks it's so radical they can't comprehend it.

Liberals love to talk about authortarianism as a supposed conservative attitude or trait but as you can see they fail to see their own authoritarianism within their own actions. This now sets the framework as how I first envisioned an example of "Authoritarian Tattletale". So what I imagined was two young siblings in the back seat of a car. And it feels more natural to state the two are a brother and a sister. Just like most young men they are not likely to stay seated in their seat but is like everywhere and may not even be conscience of his actions on others. And his sister (young lady) is dressed in her best dress and does not want to be disturbed by her brother. But like most siblings one is bound to want to try and control the other sibling. So the sister starts or just responds to supposed transgressions by the perpetrator.

As the author above shows that the victim gets to claim what the lines will be. So no matter who started it the sister now gets to draw the line (literally on the seat). And of course she reports her deep desire to not be disturbed or harrassed by her brother. Even when he is on his 'side' she can still complain about his manners like sticking his tongue out, making noises, etc. And if all else fails she starts saying that 'Johnny' is going to break the rules. In essence she now percieves that transgressions will happen. This now steps into thought police.

Any questions?
Note: the link to Thom's board may not work.

Webster: Tattletale

Sunday, September 10, 2006

"Path to 9/11"

The movie started with the usual disclaimer. Not a documentary.
Links to "Path to 9/11":
What Clinton and the Dems Are So Afraid Of
Clinton on al-Qaida: "Can We Kill 'Em Tomorrow?"
Dem Protests Showing of ABC 9/11 Documentary
Ministry Of Truth
The ABC Miniseries Kerfuffle
ABC's "Path to 9/11": The Video Democrats DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
At Last, A Real 9/11 Debate
Sandy Berger on The Path to 9 11
Did the Dems Threaten ABC?

Monday, September 04, 2006

An answer to Ren's post.

I question everything, including what I can observe for myself first person, because I know I am able to misconstrue just about anything, its the nature of this apparatus we are all endowed with. In science there are very few facts, mostly hypothesis and theories. In human created culture, even theories are hard to come by. So that's why I question. That you ask why, rhetorically, I am guessing implies you don't see a need to the way I do. As I've said before, you make up your world in your mind, and I make up mind. The way things go when we share words, I can't even imagine how we could ever compare notes.

So? Go ahead and question everything. I will instead have a base on previous works. Instead of reinventing the tire, I will assume that the "theory" of round objects work better under a moving object.
I think this shows your lack of understanding of science. It is easy to create a theory, I have a theory that middle class Americans choose their Giffen Good and thus emphasize the opposite product to purchase. See that was easy, now the hard part would be to prove it (sort of like in geometry it was expected to learn the proofs). Yes I agree that I don't see the way you do. Although I have adapted, I see little ability for you to comprehend beyond your core beliefs.
There is also another theory that those that have had loving and caring parents when they were young are more likely to be trusting of others. Not that they are gullible but trust others and the world around them. That is being held and cared for when young lead to greater degrees of self-confidence later in life. And even to a degree those secure individuals were less likely to become authoritarian.

Your question of which of your two options is more dangerous already has it's answer implied in the framing of question, for you. But for me, it's not a question I ask, so one I won't answer, because I think it's false dilemma. I'm not concerned with which is more dangerous. I'm concerned with finding ways to end violence.
The answer I believe could take on both choices and as such I asked it. Even in a debate I could stand behind either side. In a utopian world yes, we would all eat granola and the sheep will lie down with the lion. But that is for another life and not this one. But I wonder if you were concerned about ending violence for the last 6 years in Israel from Hezbollah's attacks.

So I'm guessing here, but it appears you don't seem to see that your government's providing arms to kill civilians of a [sovereign] nation, which is against our own laws, as being a problem then. That's one thing I'm concerned about, the breaking of the laws of our own nation. I consider the rule of law important to prevent a barbaric state of affairs.
Though I can see how it is a problem with you. Is this another case where you will say that you think all laws have equal value to you? Are you becoming the legalist here?
Watch out we are becoming a barbaric state of affairs. I just saw 3 people jaywalking, my neighbor smokes some strange looking cigarettes, countless speeders on the road, my wife's bike was stolen 3 times, I even took off early on Friday work. And I guess let us not talk about Clinton.
So no I don't consider it a problem, at least not as much as the violating laws that Hezbollah has done.

You suggest that I criticize the support given the Shi'ites in Lebanon by Syria and Iran. I don't see where my doing that would change anything for you and your position about the support of your government for this fiasco. I see some issues that could raise questions about the breaking of any of the laws in Lebanon for a group of people, the Shi'ites of Lebannon, who are poor and have little backing from their central government, who then accept financial and military help whereever they can get it to rebuild from the destruction caused by the occupation of Israel for so many years, to deal with the poverty, and to fend off a state which has occupied their lands and taken a large number of their people prisoner. Yes, there is a UN resolution that has been ignored, I say, then, that must be an acceptable necessity for some states in the world; since Israel has ignored some 60 or so and nothing is done about it, and Lebanon has ignored this one, it must be important for Lebanon that it has ignored it by not disarming the Hizbullah as 1559 requires, perhaps because it could not provide the adequate defense for its southern boundary in case Israel decided it needed the Litani river or something. That Israel is willing to attack and invade Lebanon isn't even a serious question. I know only one thing for sure and that's that I don't know enough to make a decision about it one way or another. I'm keeping my mind open and reading everything I can find about it.
I have not suggested as such. I only stated a fact, that you have not refuted. Yes we are now concerned about the poor. And from all the posts, they are not as downtrodden as you imagine they are. Others have suffered from the hands of Syria and you do not acknowledge as such.
Hezbollah provides no defense for a country that has not asked for it nor wants it. If Hezbollah was not there then the Government of Lebanon could have defended the border. They (Hezbollah) had a choice and they choose not to help the government out and only wanted to help themselves. Yes, that is one open mind (on one side).
And lastly nothing indicates that this war was nothing more than a war between a terrorist organization and a nation state of Israel.

In general my position is that all violence is to be avoided. So I am critical of all sides for resorting to violence when there are other options -- and I believe there are always other options. I don't know anything about this instance of Iran bombing a sovereign state you mentioned, so I haven't had a chance to say one way or another, and for you to accuse me of not making a comment about something I don't even know about is ludicrous. But I assure you it's unlikely I condone it.
Yes one option is that Israel just kept waiting and suffering the attacks of Hezbollah on a semi-regular basis. Allowing Hezbollah to get bigger and ‘badder’ weapons. After providing the basic information, it does not look like you looked it up or "read" my posts on such information.

Your characterization of the danger for one while characterizing the other as terrorists is one way of seeing the world, I suppose. I don't see blaming in that way. Both sides participate in the violence, in this case, one side is far stronger militarily than the other. My position is to look for positive, [non-violent] solutions. Your obvious error is to assume I condone any violence. I keep hoping that some day with enough usage of the term you'll come to understand what I mean when I point out how you've set things up in your mind in binary opposites.
Yes that is the definition of asymmetrical warfare. But it is asymmetrical in both directions. The big ones are thus to take constant barrages and not do anything about it.
Maybe not condone violence, but in our towers (woods), we can feel safe to ignore violence that does not fit into your worldviews.
One solution is to have Hezbollah disarm and join the Lebanese Army for those that want to defend Lebanon.

What dilemma? The dilemma of becoming a criminal state in attacking another state that harbors criminals? A terrorist is a criminal. Calling a terrorist an enemy is a grammatical reconstruction but doesn't change the reality that the terrorist breaks laws of a given nation and commits criminal acts.

LOL. How many times must I tell you that the dilemma is a non-state actor that wants to have the rights of a nation state but without the responsibilities? Of course I guess by your rules is that any state that attacks terrorists is a criminal state. I would say that the criminal state was Syria by supporting terrorists in other states. You don't see any Hezbollah attacks coming from Syria, do you?
That has been your reconstruction about terrorists being criminals. So you explain it. So who are the police that will enforce those laws that you feel they committed?

Out of what ideas did you manage to create that sentence? I'm trying to imagine what it suggests. Was there some point in history when all the people in the world got together and decided to create nation states in order to minimize conflicts? I don't know where you came up with that or what it is supposed to imply about controlling international criminal behavior today. There is and has been all kinds of organized criminal behavior going on that nations have had to deal with, as douglaslee pointed out yesterday on the other thread -- the Mafia, the pirates, the illegal immigrants, etc. The "terrorist" is another name for another variation on that theme.
Well, I doubt that you are interested in where it comes from, so I will not provide them. I suppose that this means you want to go back to Empires, because one of those two structures will be around for some time.

Aside from the definitional aspect of the act that set things in motion, Israel attacked a nation state, targeted and killed its civilians, destroyed its infrastructure. Since I don't follow your statement about the dilemma that nations now face, I'm not sure if this is the right way to ask this, but how does not being able to deal with a non-state actor "as effectively" legitimize that? It seems to me there were plenty of options available to Israel at the time. Now there are possibly far less. Now all of Lebanon, even the factions that were against the Hizbullah and could have helped in smoothing out the process, have been traumatized and it's not clear what direction things will go. Wouldn't it have been better to work on developing better relationships between the two countries? Help strengthen the flawed democratic central government of Lebanon, get help from the U.S. or other neutral sources to build up Lebanon's weak military and provide the Shi'ite faction in southern Lebanon with the social services and support it needed that ended up being provided by Hizbullah with support they had available from Iran and Syria?
Nope, they attacked a known terrorist organization that was occupying territory that was not theirs to begin with. I have not legitimized anything but you have legitimized Hezbollah attacks on civilians then they have less weapons and have not invested in defensive capabilities.

Here's where we get down to the [mainstream] position you reflect. Someone has defined Hizbullah as "terrorists" and you accept it. I don't. Hizbullah is a militia of approximately 5000 full time and 10000 reserves and a part of a religious/political faction consisting of approximately 40 percent of the total population of Lebanon. They have been accepting funding from Iran and Syria, including military weapons and training, much like the abusing spouse of whatever gender you want to pick, Loganthor picked male, on the other side of the border. Your characterization is the mainstream one, of course, that's the obvious position you taken by exclusion and your own system of definitions. There is plenty of evidence that I've uncovered now to indicate it may not be the way things really are. So I question simply your apparent unquestioning adherence to your position.
Yes you have heard someone say that Hezbollah is a nice organization against imperialist nations and as such you accept it. I don't. I looked at what they did and thus defined them as terrorists by the acts they do. There has plenty of information I provided that countered your posts and had actual facts and not theories. So I question simply your apparent unquestioning adherence to your position.

I think at this point you are in a position where you need to define terrorism. When we find a political faction in a country that has not been given the full care, services and protection that a central government is supposed to provide, it seems reasonable that they can take it upon themselves to organize and arm themselves against a neighbor that has come across their border, occupied their lands, taken their people away as captives and put them in prison, and damaged their property. That sort of organization that, after twenty some years, has evolved its own militia to protect itself, it's own social services and funding to take care of itself, and now has 14 pm representatives in the central Lebanese government to begin a process of getting its share, does not fit any standard definition of a terrorist. Just because you want to call it a state within a state, does not mean that the Shi'ites have to live by your definition of them. They are facing their own dire problems, and they have every right to determine what they are and how to deal with them.
Are you stupid, or do you have the memory of a snail? I have already defined it in depth and you refused to recognize it. Your problem.
Yes when we find out that one faction was granted special conditions by the central government what should be done. Well luckily they kicked out that government controlled by Syria and did not start the civil war back again. They actually disarmed their militias. Why did Hezbollah not also disarm?
So much for small government!!!
Again, you just like repeating your propaganda. They did not defend or even plan to defend Lebanon. What land did they prevent from Israel taking? They only invited by their actions to get retaliation.
Yes they have dire problems because of what they invited upon themselves. Again you easily forget about colonization of Lebanon by Syria that favored one faction over the others. Most often done by force. Where is your sympathy for that?

You may as well know that your presentation of posts on the Middle East thread was just spam to me. I don't take them as anything representing what you think or don't think about this issue. So you have a lot of work to do if you want to use them in any way in your arguments. Basically, you may think you were doing something but to me it was a waste of your time. I didn't even read them if I didn't see comments. So that argument's gone as far as I'm concerned.
Great a little honesty here. But this contradicts with this: "I'm keeping my mind open and reading everything I can find about it." So it looks like a lie to me. I could care less what you think. So my work is for myself only and definitely not for you that want every post to conform to some set of rules that you change on a whim. Somehow you have delusions of grandeur.

Like I said above, I have explored the cultural situation in Southern Lebanon, and I now have questions about the status quo position you take. I am also fully aware that the more I learn the more I realize I need to learn, and that I will undoubtedly never achieve a state that relieves me of doubt about what I really understand. You don't apparently feel inclined in that direction that’s your prerogative. But at this point you have proven nothing to me. I'm already well aware of the position you choose and from where its formulations are derived.
That's funny! I want the situation to change and change drastically. I think I spelled that out well enough. It sounds like you want the status quo. You want Hezbollah to maintain their militia and to attack Israel when it wants.
Of course I have not proven anything to you..."I didn't even read them if I didn't see comments." Sticking your head in the sand is a sure way not to learn. And lastly, you have no idea where my formulations come from. That is because you have not tried. Cognitive Dissonance.

In other words, you pasted so much on that thread you don't have a clue if you even made such a point or where it might be. At this point I'll have to assume it's just your opinion.
You ignored it last time so no I will not work for you it ignore it again. Just stick your head back into the sand.

Yes, they are both at fault for perpetrating violence. Hizbullah has a perfect right to respond to the dominant and aggressive Israel, even though such response continues the conflict much to the detriment of the population. In my perspective, the U.S. should not be behind either but if it takes any responsibility in the matter, it should try to stop the violence through arbitration.
No, Hezbollah has no rights unless provided by the growing democracy as we defined as Lebanon. It is government’s responsibility to provide for defense. When Hezbollah prevented this happening then it became their fault at the start of the war.

By this time you should have caught on to the notion that "Fox news" is a synonym for right wing slanted news. If you haven't, catch on now.
Maybe in your mind but not mine. I know that anything right of Democracy Now is defined in this category. Even Idymedia must be right wing puppet in your mind. LMAO.

My funny what? Oh, "you're" funny. (Please don't be so conceited as to call attention to other people's poor grammar and misspellings, you'll likely find yourself sitting in a pile of broken glass.)
I've noticed that extreme right wing people tend to identify anything to left of them as socialists. So your broad categorizations of that sort only serve to more clearly identify you. I don't know how Hillary (whoever she is) got into this, or what point you could possibly be making with her. Anyway, this is your issue, not mine, I don't much care. Just note that it merely helps to locate your political position by what you call others different than you. If that's what you want to do then fine. You did it.

I am not conceited, but after being corrected on countless times, I figured you guys can take something back. You are the one in the glass house. You are the one that started the bullshit with the "center around".
And I will say the back to you. By your attacking conservative points of view, clearly shows that you are as socialist as sunrise.

This may come as a huge shock to you, so I recommend you sit down. I don't read everything you write. I never have and I never will.
Fair enough that explains enough that it shows that you have your head stuck in the sand and that you don't want to hear from a variety of views. Cognitive Dissonance.
So no wonder you don't understand my point of view. No wonder that you can come to the same conclusion that everyone has already stated on nearly 20 pages and then even act like you discovered something.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you['re] the one with the rigid position here. Again, I don't know if we can come to one, but you've got a fairly imprecise definition of terrorist here that I don't find myself inclined to go along with. I've already pointed out the political and cultural complexities and the problems that the 40 percent of the Lebanese population of approximately 3.8 million. I can see that simplifying things in the way you have makes for some very difficult circumstances for negotiating issues with a very large number of people of this sort. For you to define what they can do to defend themselves in this manner doesn't allow them much room to deal with their problems when they have only a weak and fractious democracy behind them. But if that's how you want to go about dealing with the threat of violence and destruction in the world, there isn't much I can do but disagree.
Shit you are stupid. You do not know my position as you do not read my posts and now you present yourself as an expert. Narcissist. Already defined terrorism-look for it if you want.

Nothing I write "indicates" I support anyone who uses violence. You obviously read into what I say and make erroneous assumptions. What I think you are doing is failing to notice that I look at other issues and points of view than the ones you are willing to look at and from that you are making up a conclusion that I agree with something to do with those points of view when they result in violence. Do I need to point out the frame of mind you would need to have to think that way about something you don't know going on in my head? Keeping the mind open to possibilities and not coming to conclusions is how to avoid binary opposition thinking. I merely look at the structure in which the violence is taking place far differently than you, apparently, in order to see if there are possible ways to reassess the dynamics of all the forces involved and find ways to end it.
You're showing your stupidity again. I looked at all sources including your biased ones. While you have clearly stated you failed to read my sources.
That is some good advice, do not come to any conclusions and thus you will avoid binary opposition. But once you have a theory or idea then it can be broke down to its binary opposition components.

Ronald, I don't much care what you address. I fully expect you to be completely unaware of what I think about, what I try to imagine, even after I make an effort to explain it to you, so whatever you address, I doubt if it will be my positions. I don't enjoy taking the effort to respond to you, I don't think you care what I say or think, and I don't feel like I'm exploring anything with you. My interest is to explore ideas and possibilities. I think you are primarily focused on proving yourself right and not much else. Possibly wasting other people's time, yes, that may also be on your agenda too. Who can say, other than I feel I'm wasting mine. And it feels claustrophobic trying to get into your thoughts. ...And for goodness sakes, notice that it doesn't look to[o] smart of you when you make snide comments about other people's use of the language after your last word in that sentence there.
And yes I expect you to never completely be aware of what I think, even when it is easily available for you to examine. Cognitive Dissonance.
No your idea is to explore ideas and possibilities in a certain mindframe and unwilling to think for one second outside your rigid philosophies.
So we compare a typo to a person that can not get his apostrophes correct, no?
You also make statements into questions with just the addition of the question mark, no? Maybe you should try the technique I just used, no? Because you look stupid with question marks used as a way to ask questions that are not framed as such. Thus you can hide behind that it was a question when you made a statement, no?

I do not want you to address me again.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Surname Profiler. Rutherford

I hope the following link works.

The following maps show the densities of people with the surname of "Rutherford" in the United Kingdom. (Dates in brackets.) The above link is to the main page to check other names.

Name or Category: RUTHERFORD (1881)

Name or Category: RUTHERFORD (1998)

For more data on Rutherford Surname: International Comparisons

HT (Hat Tip): How to play the global name game

PS (10-16-07): Be sure to check out LondonProfiler