Only the ignorant dare call french cowards

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Davros: Sorry dude, but while I sympathise with the fact that you have political proclivities to adhere to, in no way is that a spotless and peachy clean administration you are defendin there . Sure they sat back and smiled at other activities, but ole Rootin Tootin Shootin Rummie let more than a few bullets fly back then.

Sure he did, but did he call the French cowards or did he complain about their position? There is quite a difference. Did Rummy or any other administration official start the **cough**Freedom Fries**cough**cough** phenomenon that you used as an example? Nope!

To suggest those things were done at the behest of the Bush Administration is incorrect, no matter what unrelated politically incorrect sound bytes are evidenced. To suggest that my correction of those incorrect insinuations is to perpetuate a "spotless and peachy clean" administration is even more so.

These things were not done by the American people at the behest of the Bush Administration any more than the French people burned effigies of Bush or burned faux Statues Of Liberty at the Chirac Administrations behest, although I'm sure that sent a few smiles through Chirac's circle... Any more than the Canadian MP who called all American's bastards was representing her constituency or the administration, although I'm sure that also caused a few smiles here and there.

Everyone certainly does have their proclivities to cling to though. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 11-06-2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: Sorry dude, but while I sympathise with the fact that you have political proclivities to adhere to, in no way is that a spotless and peachy clean administration you are defendin there . Sure they sat back and smiled at other activities, but ole Rootin Tootin Shootin Rummie let more than a few bullets fly back then.

Davros - the sad fact is that there is no such thing as a "spotless and peachy keen administration" in the U.S. anymore - period. Regardless of which political party is sitting in the White House or controlling Congress, there are backroom deals and shady alliances being made every day. In fact, thinking back over my relatively short life, the only administration that I can recall being relatively "scandal free" was Jimmy Carter back in 1976-1980. But many people consider him to be one of the most ineffective Presidents we ever had also. Personally, I think he makes a much better diplomat, but I was too young to really know or care about the impact his policies had on our economy and foreign relations.

I would also extend this same assertion to most of the "administrations" throughout the world. Those in power want to stay in power, and will usually take whatever measures they deem necessary to achieve it. I realize that a very broad (and generalized) accusation, and I accept the fact that I may be wrong in specific, isolated incidents. But I would bet that the "powers that be" in most countries have certain aspects of their administration that they prefer their general public not know about.

As for Rootin Tootin Rummie (I love nickname, btw [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] ) and Cowboy George, there is no doubt they are the worst examples of foreign diplomacy gone wrong in recent history. On 9/11, we had the support and sympathy of the entire world - and they managed to completely erode that unified support in 18 short months. That has got to be a record. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] However, as bad as their flaws are, I honostly believe that Bush and Co. were the better choice of administrations to have in the power when 9/11 hit. I really believe that Al Gore would have done nothing more than a half-hearted attempt to find Bin Laden in Afghanistan and there is no way he would have gone into Iraq (which may or may not have been a good thing, depending on your POV). And this sentiment has been echoed by others I know that are in the military.

America needed a strong and decisive leader that would go after Bin Laden with everything we had, and I just don't believe Gore would have done that. Of course, the flip side to that type of "all out" attitude is knowing when to reign it back in - and that is weakness Bush has.

[Timber Loftis]

Memnoch and Donut, I was not trying to say anyone was trying to run me off in particular. I certainly wasn't trying to lay any sort of guilt trip on you, Memnoch.

It was the "culture that has developed" (taking off on Memnoch's last post) that I was lamenting. I recognize moderators have to consider other people's feelings than their own. I guess therein lies the problem. The more IWF members in general wear their feelings on their sleeves or become less tolerant of opposing viewpoints, the more heavy-handed a moderator must become as to those opposing viewpoints -- in keeping with the fact they must consider the feelings of the members.

In the US, we protect opposing minority viewpoints with the 1st Amendment -- making it perfectly acceptable for me to hold a KKK rally or a "Anti-French Hate-in." I recognize that the Rules&Regs *explicitly* say IWF is no democracy, nor do any sort of these protections apply here, excepts as the mods and Choc allow. However, the more certain viewpoints (ones that aren't considered "radical" in the real world) get pushed to the fringe, the more I understand why every -- EVERY -- viewpoint should in theory be protected.

Anyway, it is true that conservative members have left. And, yes, Donut, the attitude has caused it. They didn't necessarily leave "mad" or "angry," they just got a little sick of hearing too much liberal ranting all the time and found other places more to their liking. I think that's a darn shame. And, when I mentioned I was the next in line, it's because I was lamenting the circumstances of IWF's atmosphere. Well, I also fully expected to be given a vacation after my last post, as well. Anyway, I was laying guilt at no one's feet and I certainly wasn't whining.

When I first came here, I found myself railing a lot on environmental issues and defending democrats, etc. Now, I find myself taking the opposite tack in order to challenge peoples' ideas -- because, let's face it, a "yeah, amen, brother" love-in isn't much of a discussion. Believe me, I'd rather it be like it was then. I got a lot more involved in what I saying, because it was a good deal closer to what I cared about.

Anyway, on to TACT. Yes, I was tactless, and let me explain why, and perhaps explain why a good joke is often tactless. First postulate, it is entirely a fair opinion for me to think the French are poor military planners with a poor military history. While I am no military strategy wonk, France does have a history of being on the losing end of some military engagements. (I'm sure some military tacticians over time have thought upon Verdun and wondered "why not just retreat to where they *aren't shelling*?" -- of course on the other hand trench warfare makes moving the lines nearly impossible.) Now I don't think ill of France's military history -- am in fact not knowledgable enough about the particulars of France's military history to be even able to form such an opinion -- but that doesn't mean I can't think it, and SAY it -- if done tactfully.

Second postulate, jokes go over-the-top. If I had come on and posted "Actually, France has a poor military history, and they lose a lot, and here's why..." it would have sounded serious. It wouldn't have made it obvious that I was being tongue-in-cheek. Now, that's no good. So, to be funny, I aimed for an over-the-top obvious hyperbole over-statement.

Now, from the responses to my joke, it was a GROANER. But, can someone really fairly be offended by a groaner joke? Obviously, I called this wrong, and the answer is yes. Much to my chagrin.

Anyway, I've wasted enough or your time on this thread. My one-off sarcastic comment certainly has caused me more time spent writing essays than I'd intended or wanted. I promise I was very surprised by this backlash.

{edit}As an afterthought, I forgot to mention that I have never met a Frenchman (or woman) I didn't like. I've met at least a dozen, and none have ever irked me in any way, in fact quite the opposite (erm... remember, IDEAS that may irk me on IWF are not the same). Anyway, I guess I felt like pointing out I ain't anti-French and never have been. I guess the fact I feel the need to point this out is proof that it's true. Anyway, I certainly wouldn't want to run off any of our French posters. They've come too close to leaving before as is -- I didn't want it then and I don't want it now.

Final thing: Memnoch, I don't understand the phrase "spit the dummy," and I have tried. Sorry.

[ 11-06-2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: the left-leaning ways of IWF have run off a few long-time members lately. (Guess I'm just next in line.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being right, left or neutral. I too play all sides of a debate, preferring to support independant thought as opposed to blind support for an ideology. My politics remains right of central, but in discussions I will oppose misinformation, closed mindedness and rudeness - well, that is when I raise the energy and motivation to do so.

When I made comment about you compensating for a lack of right wing view, I could picture in my mind that you had used the same "just joking" format as used by another of our Casbah collegues back in the bad old "lets whip a Frenchman" days at the start of the war. The odd thing to my mind is that I think back a year ago when the right was in full flow you would have probably felt it just as far "out of line" as I did then and still do today.

I don't know if you are self aware of it, but there has been a sea change in your posting habits. You may want to go back and contrast the differences in your posts nowadays with some that you could dig up from a year ago. If you are into self analysis then that may be an interesting exercise, but I will admit I don't know too many personally who would have the sort of patience to do something like that on the suggestion of a stranger (especially when I am after all only a D2 ).

The world and the forum needs all sorts though - right, left, objective and curmudgeon. I have no objective of seeing curmudgeons left right out [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Edit : Please to note TL that I was writing this at the same time as you were writing the post above. I am about to read your post now, but just making it clear that this post was proactive thoughts, and not reactive to anything you might have said just now.

[ 11-06-2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I never said they were cowards. They're the best and bravest bunch of losers in the whole world. Some people just lose a battle or a war. Not the french. The French do it with aplomb. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img]

coward - c.1225, from O.Fr. coart, from coe "tail," from L. coda, dialectal variant of cauda "tail," of uncertain origin + -ard, an agent noun suffix (denoting "one who does"). The word probably reflects an animal metaphoric sense still found in expressions like turning tail and tail between legs. Coart was the name of the hare in O.Fr. versions of "Reynard the Fox." As a surname (attested from 1255) it represents O.E. cuhyrde "cow-herd."

brave - 1485, from M.Fr. "splendid, valiant," from It. bravo "brave, bold," orig. "wild, savage," possibly from M.L. bravus "cutthroat, villain," from L. pravus "crooked, depraved;" a less likely etymology being from L. barbarus (see barbarous). A Celtic origin (Ir. breagh, Cornish bray) has also been suggested. The noun application to N. American Indian warrior is from 1601. The verb "to face with bravery" is from 1776. Bravery is from 1548. Brave new world is from the title of Aldous Huxley's 1932 satirical utopian novel; he lifted the phrase from Shakespeare ("Tempest," v.i.183).

bunch - c.1325, "protuberance on the body, swelling," perhaps echoic of the sound of hitting; sense of "cluster" is c.1450; connection obscure; but perhaps through O.Fr. bouge, from Fl. boudje dim. of boud "bundle."

aplomb - "assurance, confidence," 1828, from Fr., lit. "perpendicularity," from phrase à plomb "poised upright, balanced," lit. "on the plumb line," from L. plumbum "(the metal) lead," of which the weight at the end of the line was made.

I hate to bring you bad news, but ... you are speaking Freedomish - er, I mean French !

Well, not always. "Loser" is not a French word, it is all yours.

[Yorick]

Touche Moirain... that was a hilarious comeback!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Donut: I can honestly say that I've only ever been upset by one member of IW - and that was because I considered him a friend.

And I'll say it again. I make no apology... Donut good sir, you are a cad and a fop.

[Yorick]

Moiraine, you may be interested to know, I have taken to wearing a blue BERET while wlking the streets of New York.

[Timber Loftis]

Erm... you guys are aware that I was aware that aplomb was a very French word, and purposefully used it in that way, right?

As for the other words being French-derived, I'd point out that while I wasn't individually familiar with them, I am aware that fully half of our words derive from French, an influx of language that began subsequent to the Battle of Hastings in 1066, after which the "language of government" starting becoming heavily French-derived.

And, for those of you who think "Aha! The Battle of Hastings is proof positive the French are a military power to be reckoned with," well you'll have to forgive me for pointing out anybody can beat up a wussy Brit. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

(Surely that was not over the line and taken in the spirit it was intended.)

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Erm... you guys are aware that I was aware that aplomb was a very French word, and purposefully used it in that way, right?

Er... no... you're an American. "Noter Daem" anyone?