From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:

>In message <biljc5dqinoq9ac9japjdv7m2c4c3r2vf7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <hachha$aje$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mikey4
>>><lakediver(a)dd.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC and
>>>>>>others on Fox and their handling of stores.

I don't believe this. I think you are flat-out making it up.

>>You may have seen or heard negative comments about Fox News
>>programming, but were they about Fox News news segments or Fox News
>>political commentary host's programs?
>
>Either.
>
>>The latter are not news programming. That's why it is necessary to
>>understand what a political commentator's role is. Something you
>>clearly don't understand.
>
>I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
>pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
>scene.
>
>I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
>were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
>keep the peace and get supplies for people.

I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
be as negative as a description using "looters".

>In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words
>portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law

The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
"vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.

> when
>in fact there was on the whole no difference between the two groups.
>However that is what the audience wanted to believe.

If something like what you report was said, the point would have been
that there is no difference between the groups. It is your lack of
understanding of the meaning of the word that creates the problem.

>
>>I don't suppose you have a link to one of those comments. You never
>>do. You just hand-wave.
>
>"Those comments" are usually on a live broadcast not a web site. The
>problem is you only believe things on web sites.

That's not necessarily true. Yes, I want cites for what you claim
because I don't find you to be credible. You make things up, you tend
to generalizations and hyperbole, you rely on anecdotal information,
you offer opinion as fact, and you are quite often completely wrong.
You may present some valid information, but it's difficult to know
what is valid and what is just hand-waving. So, I ask for cites from
you.

You don't see me asking, say, Savageduck for cites. He is credible.
There are others that post here that I consider credible.

You say you use your own name like that is some sort of validation.
So does Bill Graham, and I see you in the same light as I see Bill
Graham. Both of you are people with a strong personal bias and agenda
who are often wrong, never seem to be willing to admit that they have
been wrong, and slither away when asked to produce some other source
as a back-up of their claims.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q64pc5t7s86hgmsd2dctahb8ghgpi7vl72(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <biljc5dqinoq9ac9japjdv7m2c4c3r2vf7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>>On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <hachha$aje$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mikey4
>>>><lakediver(a)dd.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:26:21 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes I have watched Fox. Also I have seen the comments from CNN, BBC
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>others on Fox and their handling of stores.
>
> I don't believe this. I think you are flat-out making it up.
>
>>>You may have seen or heard negative comments about Fox News
>>>programming, but were they about Fox News news segments or Fox News
>>>political commentary host's programs?
>>
>>Either.
>>
>>>The latter are not news programming. That's why it is necessary to
>>>understand what a political commentator's role is. Something you
>>>clearly don't understand.
>>
>>I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
>>pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
>>scene.
>>
>>I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
>>were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
>>keep the peace and get supplies for people.
>
> I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
> would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
> describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
> be as negative as a description using "looters".
>
>>In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words
>>portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law
>
> The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
> operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
> "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.
>
>> when
>>in fact there was on the whole no difference between the two groups.
>>However that is what the audience wanted to believe.
>
> If something like what you report was said, the point would have been
> that there is no difference between the groups. It is your lack of
> understanding of the meaning of the word that creates the problem.
>
>>
>>>I don't suppose you have a link to one of those comments. You never
>>>do. You just hand-wave.
>>
>>"Those comments" are usually on a live broadcast not a web site. The
>>problem is you only believe things on web sites.
>
> That's not necessarily true. Yes, I want cites for what you claim
> because I don't find you to be credible. You make things up, you tend
> to generalizations and hyperbole, you rely on anecdotal information,
> you offer opinion as fact, and you are quite often completely wrong.
> You may present some valid information, but it's difficult to know
> what is valid and what is just hand-waving. So, I ask for cites from
> you.
>
> You don't see me asking, say, Savageduck for cites. He is credible.
> There are others that post here that I consider credible.
>
> You say you use your own name like that is some sort of validation.
> So does Bill Graham, and I see you in the same light as I see Bill
> Graham. Both of you are people with a strong personal bias and agenda
> who are often wrong, never seem to be willing to admit that they have
> been wrong, and slither away when asked to produce some other source
> as a back-up of their claims.

I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some minor
discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your point....Savageduck
does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than specifics,
and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the
difference between minor specifics and my general logic. Please point out
where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking
instantly.

From: tony cooper on
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some minor
>discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your point....Savageduck
>does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than specifics,

The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment
is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is
hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for
bungling the specifics.

>and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the
>difference between minor specifics and my general logic.

Oddly enough, this could very well be the defense that one of those
political commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
or Sean Hannity would use when caught out. They might completely
twist and spin the truth, but would claim that their general logic is
correct even if their specifics are not.

>Please point out
>where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking
>instantly.

I would not expect you to. You have a strong bias against the US and
a disdain for the US military. You have deep-seated misconceptions
about the American public.

Pointing out your errors or misapprehensions isn't going to change
your thinking. And, frankly, attempting to enlighten you isn't a game
worth the candle.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q64pc5t7s86hgmsd2dctahb8ghgpi7vl72(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>


>>
>>I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
>>pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
>>scene.
>>
>>I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
>>were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
>>keep the peace and get supplies for people.
>
> I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
> would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
> describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
> be as negative as a description using "looters".

Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the law
into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the
necessary and proper thing to do.

Do you know where and when the term got started?

In the mid-19th century, San Francisco, then a relatively small town, was
much troubled by crime and violence. Honest men and women were attacked and
robbed, businesses were too, streets and homes were unsafe, and the local
judges and peace officers were worse than useless -- basically the local law
was in cahoots with the criminals.

Eventually the local citizens got fed up with this and formed what they
called a "vigilance committee." (This of course is where "vigilante" comes
from.) One day the committee rounded up a number of the most notorious
crooks, including some of the local "law" I believe, gave them a speedy
trial and hanged them.

The effect on San Francisco was salutory. Criminals and corrupt law officers
alike fled the city post haste, and it became (for a while) a peaceful,
law-abiding and orderly town.

As I recollect, the citizens of San Francisco had to do that twice, and on
one occasion federal troops were called in to protect the corrupt local law,
with mixed results.

These very interesting and even instructive events are extensively covered
in the book "The Barbary Coast," by Herbert Asbury, published in 1933 --
about five years after his better known book, "Gangs of New York." The
latter of course was what the silly movie of that title with Leonardo
DiCaprio was supposedly based on -- though to even suggest that there's any
similarity between the book and the movie should be made a criminal offense.
Both books are an excellent read and may still be available -- I have
facsimile reprints of both, haven't read them for many years but must do so
again soon.

>
>>In other words gang warfare but the very subtle differences in the words
>>portrayed one group as criminals and the other as upholding the law
>
> The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
> operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
> "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.

It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is
generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term
originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law is
supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked, robbed and
worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the vigilante in
one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people do to protect
themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina, many of the police
fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and were arrested in
Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained seem to have been
absolutely useless.


From: Neil Harrington on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iu0ac59g3ai05s3h2l7a1bta610dqeudhc(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 18:47:20 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>
>>And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.
>
> Our face must be red.

<guffaw!>