 sj |
||
|
||
Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Art Thieme Date: 20 Aug 01 - 12:58 PM Abby, Yours either ! Art |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Art Thieme Date: 18 Aug 01 - 10:08 PM For the Mucatters around the world who may not understand-----Coyote is the trickster animal/god/ultra-wise metaphoric spirit in the tales of many Native-American plains tribes' traditional lore. These tales all make strong points, teach important lessons that could benefit the serious listener and guide him or her on the adventure that is life. And there is always a humorous or lighter aspect to Coyotes doings that pretty much say that a good sense of humor will get you through most anything at all. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Troll Date: 18 Aug 01 - 01:30 AM To give no reasonable rebuttal beyond "My position is the only correct one" is the stance taken by the tyrant and the boss who will brook no argument or even discussion. It is also the stance of the "true believer" who has decided that there is only black and white and who consequently will not hear any argument that does not conform to his own rigid position. It's also boring and trite and shallow. Most of us outgrow it. Thank God. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: harpgirl Date: 18 Aug 01 - 12:17 AM ...nothing wrong with your mammery Artster! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Art Thieme Date: 17 Aug 01 - 10:33 PM Ain't no drift. Just moved the capo up the neck to a higher/different plane. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Aug 01 - 10:04 PM I'd love to hear that sung! (This is the right kind of thread drift...) |
|
Subject: ADD: Coyote (Al Grierson) From: Art Thieme Date: 17 Aug 01 - 09:39 PM Both of these threads tell me that Coyote is enjoying the hell out of all this. It's just chaos rearing it's ugly/beautiful head yet again. Friends and allies squaring off. By now we ought to know better---or at least make room for our one-time partners when there is no room at the inn. I would like to present my candidate for the Best Song Ever Written award. It's called, simply, COYOTE The author is the late AL GRIERSON And I humbly dedicate this to a fine person ---PHYLLIS BARNEY who has done and continues to do a grand job at the Folk Alliance what with all of those diverse egos and musical agendas. (one guys opinion) Phyllis, take heart !!!! We love and appreciate you even as the TRICKSTER COYOTE does his thing. This too shall pass. Keep in mind: If ya don't have a sense of humor, it isn't funny !!! COYOTE
I've been reading all about it in the annals of some ancient lore,
Old coyote
On the mountain top with Moses and with Daniel in the lions den,
Old Coyote,
In the bed between the Travellin' Salesman and the Farmer's Daughter,
Old Coyote,
Now there's an ancient city hidden deep beneath the waves,
Old Coyote,
Now there's a big wind blowin' down the cities from the outlaw trail
Is this the end of history or just a wagon full of roses standin' at the gates of Rome
'Cause there's an angel with a trumpet in the graveyard where the night wind groans,
Waitin' for the holocaust--
Old Coyote,
Little brother of necessity -- the seeker and the sacred clown,
Old Coyote, (Art Thieme)
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Aug 01 - 09:22 PM There are lots of other threads still extant which are about the anonymous GUEST thing. As I've indicated, I also think the practice is irritating, discourteous and diverts attention to the person/people who go in for it, but going on about it in this thread is not a sensible thing to do.
Generally I think a bit of thread drift is fine,and I do it all the time. But I think moving off onto this issue on this thread just gets in the way of more significant discussion.
So I suggest that the place to take the complaints, or the responses to the complaints, is File anonymous guest complaints here |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: BH Date: 17 Aug 01 - 06:52 PM So nice to know that you (if in fact you are one ---per haps female and your name is Ann Onymous) are also the arbiter of what is reason/logic and what is not. Is there anything that you are not the expert in? You are a gourmet, a politically correct thinker,a teacher, leader, and I know not what other wonderful traits you have. Can sainthood be far behind---or will we find, somehow, that when the rains come the feet made of clay dissolve. Bill Hahn
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: BH Date: 17 Aug 01 - 06:48 PM So nice to know that you (if in fact you are one ---per haps female and your name is Ann Onymous) are also the arbiter of what is reason/logic and what is not.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 09:15 PM Eh? Sure Bill...when reason fails, blame it on the guest thing, that's the ticket.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: BH Date: 16 Aug 01 - 07:54 PM Oh, could I resist? No!! A debate amongst people is good. Stand on a podium with your adversary and debate an issue. It is hard, though, to debate a nebulous phantom as GUEST. Probably a bit of a coward----and I am certainly sorry to hear that person is one who teaches our children. By his/her admission. I do believe that the comment in one post ending in "eh?" might be giving us a hint of his/her base. Regarding his/her comments on paranoia; no your walking to work is wonderful---wish we could all do that. Your not eating in fast food restaurants is great---you seem to be dining--as they say "high off the hog" --venison, etc; Great that you can afford these high tone places on your small pittance of a wage. You do claim to teach. You rent--I assume. Hopefully your landlord is not subjugating you or I am sure you would rebel after you come home from your venison dinner. Sadly, your anonymity has created a situation where a true and proper discussion is impossible. I think I shall now sidle up to the bar (with people propping me up because of my lack of a backbone) and order some Vodka with the other Liberals who have decided that zealotry on the left or right is, basically, the thing that causes rather than solves problems. No GUEST I Bill Hahn |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Aug 01 - 03:11 PM LOL............ --not a new legal principle, remember Shylock and the pound of flesh? Well, I had kinda' forgot that Ted.......Good line........and not short on the truth. Thanks for the reminder.........**still chuckling**........ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: M.Ted Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:55 PM Always late to the thread--oh well--The AOH, whose link Spaw provided, moved their convention to another venue, and the logistics, rather that the costs of cancellation, seemed to be their primary concern-- The FA could simply take this thread to court as part of the evidence that Adams Marks problems with the Justice Department and the NAACP make it impossible for FA to use their facilities without suffering irrepairably harm--A contract can be ruled invalid if it can be shown that one of the parties will suffer significant harm--not a new legal principle, remember Shylock and the pound of flesh?
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Jim the Bart Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:40 PM Spaw - I think you're right all around. Unfortunately, what the NAACP did or didn't do doesn't get the FA off the hook, which I think is a real pity. Unlike our guest, I don't question the committment or integrity of the Folk Alliance board members that I have met. This is a tough choice to make, no question about it. Go to the FA site and you can tell that a huge amount of work and planning has gone into this conference, not to mention the money. They have a lot at stake and will have to make the best choice they can, given the situation as they see it. It's always easy to claim the moral high ground when you have nothing at stake. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Aug 01 - 02:20 PM Now there are some GUESTS that are decidedly unwelcome, and 1.42 - who has also dumped on some other threads - is a case in point.
Definitely on the other side of my line. And not an example of "the creativity and wonder of chaos and anarchy..." |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:55 PM Spammed. Well, if nothing else, THAT ought to tell us the conversation is about done, eh? ;-) Pyramid scheme spam deleted. --JoeClone |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:29 PM Not really Bartholomew.......The idea of a boycott is to effect change. After this change had seemingly occured, the NAACP did what strikers do.....they went about dealing with AM as though things were on the square. When that turned out not to be the case, they reinstated the boycott. Were I looking for a place, I would have avoided AM because they have a long record and as far as turning over a new leaf I'd feel as though it was too early to tell...........So why not find another site and avoid the problem? Or, if I wanted to give them a chance, book them, but be prepared to cancel based on whether they continued to comply, which in this case they haven't. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:24 PM I noticed the same ratio of for/against at the FA site too. There doesn't seem to be much said of use here today. Looks like we're done with this one. I've no desire to put up with petty bickering, and whining around about strong opinions being rude. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Jim the Bart Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:21 PM Wolfgang - Your point's well taken; that the NAACP continued to "dance with the devil" is, indeed, perplexing to me. We're talking about perception and credibility here, extremely subjective things, and the point you raised does tend to blur the lines. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST,rather sad Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:14 PM It isn't "healing threads", or "gardening threads" or even tons of chit chat, that REALLY drives committed people away. It is this. Knowing that even if your views and opinions on this topic are based on experience, participation and consideration you will automatically be insulted by the same person time and again. It simply isn't worth the hassle. Flame away Guest, and anyone else who finds this kind of communication more interesting than the actual issue. I've tried hard not to be a nay-sayer, but I may be moving in that direction. rather angry as well.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Ron Olesko Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:06 PM Guest - I meant that you seemed paranoid because you assumed that I was questioning your convictions. That is far from the truth. Relax! We are on the same side! Ron |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST,PeteBoom (at work) Date: 16 Aug 01 - 01:00 PM Ah, St. Guest, who is always RIGHT and everyone else sold out or is a traitor to liberalism, is back. Now, about my question of infalability from yesterday, is it better than what the rest of us have to do? Worry that MAYBE we might be wrong? Once? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Aug 01 - 12:56 PM Grab.......Good or evil is not the issue......Action is the issue. In that context, the KKK has forced change through action............and so has Mo Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Group. Each has taken radical action in different ways and forced the talkers to in the middle to take a stand and move off top dead center. Yeah, they would eventually get there, but we'd be ages behind.....and maybe that's okay. A boat that makes no waves is not moving. I'm not going to beat this one to death as it's a topic best discussed in 3-D and not through brief paragraphs here. In the case of the FA, it seems that action and not simple words is needed in this matter. As I said before, better words implying the action would help. Letting AM know that the FA would not cross a picket line and that should it still exist 2 months before the meeting, they would not honor the contract. In the meantime, make alternate arrangements. I notice that the FA listserv seems to be running about 3-1 against the current position and in favor of an alternate. Spaw Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 12:29 PM McGrath, Small minded people draw lines, have opinions, beliefs, and worldviews that fit neatly in boxes, labelled neatly. Give me the creativity and wonder of chaos and anarchy anyday! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 12:22 PM What exactly is it that sounds paranoid to you Ron? I neglected to mention I also live a block from work, and walk every day. Does that make me paranoid? I also haven't eaten in fast food restaurants for 30 years. Does that make me paranoid? And no, I'm not vegetarian. But I do eat buffalo and venison, free range eggs, and love goats milk. Does that make me paranoid? I've never owned a home, a new car, or a new major appliance. Does that make me paranoid? I don't use credit cards. Does that make me paranoid?
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:23 AM Bartholomew, when the FA entered into the contract with Adams Mark, the NAACP also did business with them. And the NAACP had all the knowledge. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Jim the Bart Date: 16 Aug 01 - 11:16 AM As I see it, the Folk Alliance opened itself to trouble when it entered into a contract with a corporation with a history of civil rights violations (see Spaw's link in Part 1). The leadership of the FA may not have known the hotel chain's history when they signed the contract, but ignorance then is not an excuse now. If I was the FA I would consider the contract as breached by the Adams Mark chain and refuse to do business with them until they settle all outstanding cases and prove themselves to be in compliance with the spirit and the letter of the civil rights laws. And I would make plans to take my meeting elsewhere immediately. Would they be sued for breach of contract? Probably. Do they have a defensible position? As a non-profit organization, they stand to lose more(in terms of credibility, goodwill and future membership dollars)through fulfillment of a contract under the current circumstances than Adams Mark loses in dollars alone. So you counter-sue and let the chips fall where they may. If worse comes to worse and the FA loses in court, they could seek bankruptcy protection or fold up shop as the "Folk Alliance" and re-surface as "The Affiliation of Folk Artists". They would lose nothing but money. Here's a quote from Woody Guthrie: "I could hire out to the other side, the big money side, and get several dollars every week just to quit singing my own kind of songs. . .But I decided a long time ago that I'd starve to death before I'd sing any such songs as that." Woody was talking as an individual singer, but the principle applied to an organization remains the same. The song that "the folk movement" has always sung has been about social justice and moral/ethical responsibility. Maybe the marketing of the music means that this is no longer a factor. If that's so, the Folk Alliance may as well put its guitars away and turn on the radio, because "The radio waves and your movies and your jukeboxes and your songbooks are already loaded down and running over with such no good songs as that anyhow". |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Ron Olesko Date: 16 Aug 01 - 10:51 AM Guest - You sound a bit paranoid! I'm not knocking anyone's belief and I honestly admire your committment and convictions. I don't know if you meant that literally or if it was a generic statement, but I would be happy if you were to teach my kids. The issue is much bigger than just the FA. I just wanted to point out that there are MORE companies involved than just the FA, and if people are truely dedciated to the boycott they need to consider the WHOLE picture. The Adams Mark books numerous conventions, meetings, and executives from these companies. IF the boycott is to be effective these companies must be considered. The FA is a drop in the ocean. I do worry that some people are wrapping this issue around a dislike for the FA which clouds the purpose of the boycott - a boycott that I hope will result in a resolution BEFORE the FA meeting in February. Ron |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Aug 01 - 10:29 AM But wasn't that what you were doing GUEST 9.31(assuming that the GUEST who was commenting on the liberalism of the mandarin classes at 8.51 is the same GUEST. But that's another wearisome issue...(and I'm breaking a sensible promise to in posting this).
We all draw a line and some of the views we disagree with are on this side, and some are on that side. And if they are on that side, we don't see them as valid, and can't really work and communicate with people holding them. And in principle that's quite right, I'd say. But we've got to be careful where we draw that line, and some people draw them in very peculiar places. And some peole refuse to draw them in places whee they maybe need to be drawn, which is in a sense what this thread is all about.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 10:18 AM Ron, Because I have the conviction of my beliefs, doesn't mean I am so blinkered that I see only "one morally right path." Rather, I see millions of them. And BTW, I'm a Linux user. I shop at what a locally owned food cooperative, and I won't be able to honor the NAACP television industry boycott, because I don't watch television. How have I managed to survive all these years, in the center of a thriving urban area, when I am so obviously a member of the lunatic fringe? Easy! I teach your kids. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Ron Olesko Date: 16 Aug 01 - 10:04 AM I'm hoping that everyone who sees that there is only one morally right path and have focused their attention on the FA are also doing their best to boycott other companies. Microsoft, Apple, Compaq, Dell, IBM, and other companies whose products we support (the evidence that we are reading this note proves that we use one or more of these companies products)have not (to my knowledge) issued any statements that they won't use Adams Mark hotels. I'm sure their executives book rooms with the hotel, hold conferences and trade shows at the hotel, and continue to do business with them. I would guess that we should probably stay off the Internet until we can be sure they support the boycott. Also, the NAACP is considering another boycott which we should be aware of. This note appeared in a newsletter from Cynthia Turner Cynopsis: "For the second time in two years, the NAACP has again threatened to boycott the television industry, saying minorities still are not found in positions of power within the industry. Said NAACP President Kweisi Mfume: "I still can't understand why after 50 years of television there aren't any African Americans who can green-light a show, hire and fire a director or make any real decisions.'' The NAACP has issued a 36-page report which finds the areas most lacking are in television news, public affairs and sports at the major networks; and in the programming area, minorities are rarely found in the positions of writers or producers. In preparing for a boycott, the NAACP has identified television's 50 biggest advertisers and determined which of their products are used the most by African Americans. Mfume said he is preparing "to do battle" and is also considering the possibility of legal action against the industry as a whole. As he did in 1999 when the NAACP threatened to boycott the television industry, Mfume says one of the four big networks will be targeted for a boycott, though he declined to say which. A meeting of the NAACP national board is scheduled in October, at which time Mfume will outline his plans going forward. According to a study issued by the Screen Actors Guild, minority actors made up 23% of all film and primetime television roles last year, the highest percentage in the past nine years. In the year 2000, there were 53,134 SAG contracts signed for performing roles. Of those 53,134, 14.8% were filled by black actors, 4.9% Latinos, 2.6% Asian-Pacific Americans and 0.6% by Native Americans." I don't want to be misconstrued - I fully believe that a changes in policies of companies like Adams Mark and the TV industry (where I make my living) is important to social change. I fully support boycotts, but I want to work to finding solutions and improving conditions. I'm sure the NAACP wants to resolve this and the boycott is putting pressure on Adams Mark to fix the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again. The object isn't to put Adams Mark or the FA out of business, it is to correct a wrong. That is the purpose of any boycott. Hopefully the FA will be more sensitive in the future, and those of us who are members will remember this issue when it comes time to vote for FA leaders. I worry that, especially with anonymous postings, that some people might be using this boycott to vent their frustrations at the FA, which are valid frustrations - the organization is far from perfect. Folk music existed before they arrived and it will exist if they cease to be. I just hope that those who are adamant about boycotting the FA will have the same committment with other companies and industries that are dealing with places like Adams Mark. Ron
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Aug 01 - 09:33 AM Dear Guest
Thank you for making the point. The First Amendment is to do with Freedom of Speech. Therefore it does not impact damages for breach of contract in this case. You ask to be spared knowledge of the law of contract. Why? You feel very free to insult others. Why should anyone spare your feeling? Contract law is the basis of the liability the FA fears. If you won't listen to their argument, why should they listen to yours?
A recent UK case confirms the recoverability of loss of profits if causation is proved Docno: C0101346 Case Name: (1) BRITVIC SOFT DRINKS LTD (2) BASS BREWERS LTD (3) THOMAS HARDY PACKAGING LTD (4) BROTHERS DRINKS CO LTD v (1) MESSR UK LTD (2) TERRA NITROGEN (UK) LTD (2001) Court: QBD Commercial Court (Tomlinson J) 9/5/2001 Subject: CONTRACT - DAMAGES - TORT - SALE OF GOODS Descriptors: DRINKS : BEVERAGES : CARBONATED : BULK LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE : CO2 : IMPURITIES : CONTAMINATION : BENZENE : CARCINOGENS : PERMISSIBLE LEVELS : MANUFACTURERS : SUPPLIERS : BREACH OF CONTRACT : CONTRACTUAL TERMS : BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE : CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE : LOSSES : PRODUCT RECALL : WASTED COSTS : DESTRUCTION : DISTRIBUTION : COMPENSATION TO RETAILERS : LOSS OF PROFITS : IMPLIED TERMS : QUALITY : FITNESS FOR PURPOSE : SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 : HEALTH RISKS : HEALTH SCARES : BS4105 : BRITISH STANDARDS : FOOD APPLICATION Summary: Liquid carbon dioxide supplied for incorporation into carbonated drinks had to comply with implied terms of quality and fitness for purpose in addition to British Standard 4105 so that the inadvertent contamination with benzene founded a claim for damages against the supplier and manufacturer in respect of the recall and destruction of drinks incorporating the carbon dioxide. Text: Claimants' action to recover losses sustained as the result of the supply by the defendant ('Messer') of food application bulk liquid carbon dioxide ('CO2') that was contaminated with benzene. Messer had acquired the contaminated CO2 from the second defendant manufacturer ('Terra'). Terra accepted that the contamination had occurred in the manufacture of the CO2, but contended that it had done so in a way that was entirely unexpected. Following the discovery in 1998 that carbonated soft and alcoholic drinks manufactured by the claimants and others were contaminated with benzene, a known carcinogen, in quantities which, although uncontrolled, were not harmful to human health, the claimants nevertheless took the view that the appropriate response was to recall all drinks contaminated in excess of 15-20 parts per billion ('ppb') that were still with their wholesale customers or with supermarkets. The defendants did not argue that that was an unreasonable response. By this action the claimants sought to recover from Messer, which in turn claimed against Terra, damages for breach of contract and/or duty of care in respect of: (i) wasted costs of recalling and destroying the drinks; (ii) additional distribution costs; (iii) compensation paid to retailers; (iv) loss of profits; and (v) other additional costs. Messer and Terra denied liability in both contract and tort, and further contended that the claimants' loss was caused or substantially contributed to by their own negligence in failing to stipulate that the CO2 supplied to them was not to contain benzene and in failing to test the CO2 supplied to them for the presence of benzene. In particular, Messer contended that the terms of the supply contract between itself and the claimants were such that the CO2 supplied by it was required to conform only with British Standard 4105, which stated that the content of the CO2 supplied by it was to be "not less than 99 per cent by volume", thereby excluding the statutory implied terms as to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose. It was common ground that the benzene present in the CO2 was far less than 1 per cent by volume. They further contended that the claimants had recalled and/or destroyed drinks which, although containing benzene in excess of 10 ppb but below the range of 15-20 ppb, were perfectly safe and could have been returned to the market for sale. HELD: (1) The contract of supply between Messer and the claimants did not limit Messer's obligations merely to the supply of CO2 that complied with BS4105. It was nothing to the point that BS4105 did not mention benzene, or that it only required the CO2 supplied to consist of something less than 100 per cent CO2. The fact remained that this was a contract for the supply of CO2 for an industrial food/drinks application, and the claimants were entitled to assume, without having to specify, that the CO2 would not contain anything that was inconsistent with that application. (2) In light of that, it was impossible to conclude that the CO2 supplied by Messer was of a satisfactory standard. Messer was in breach of the implied terms as to quality and fitness for purpose. (3) It followed that Terra was liable to indemnify Messer in respect of all claims. (4) Given that the benzene had been introduced into the CO2 in a way that not even Terra, its manufacturer, had been able to anticipate, it was wholly unrealistic to suggest that the claimants should have tested for its presence when Terra had not thought it necessary. (5) As to the claim for destruction costs, it was unrealistic to suggest that, after the considerable publicity generated by the initial "scare", the public would have been prepared to accept a product that was "less" contaminated than that which had been withdrawn. However, the amount claimed would be reduced to reflect the fact that some cases of drinks had been destroyed without being tested at all for contamination. (6) The other heads of claim were all made out, save the claim for loss of profits. Although the claimants' sales had dropped at the same time as the recall, the court was satisfied that this was attributable to the claimant's pricing and promotional policies combined with strong competition from their rivals. Judgment accordingly. Appearances: Mr A Boswood QC and Mr J McCaughran instructed by Nicholson Graham & Jones for the claimants. Mr C Symons QC and Ms J May instructed by Herbert Smith for the first defendant. Mr A Prynne QC, Mr C Gibson QC and Mr G Webb instructed by Eversheds for the second defendant. References: LTL 15/8/2001 (Unreported elsewhere) Judgment: Approved - 130 pages Full Text: [Full Text]
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 09:31 AM No McGrath, I don't think that is true at all. I think people come from many very different worldviews all the time, and manage to communicate and work effectively together despite philosophical differences. To argue that someone's viewpoint isn't valid because it differs from yours is specious and self-serving.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Aug 01 - 09:17 AM "Reasonable being defined by them as anyone who agrees with their views..."
Isn't that how we all tend to see the world, however radical or unradical we are? Apart I suppose from some woolly liberals... |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 08:51 AM Liberalism is the curse of the mandarin classes upon the rest of us. There is no sanctity in the middle. It is a space where the self-obsessed and self-interested make themselves feel safe by draping themselves in the rhetoric of reasonable discourse. Reasonable being defined by them as anyone who agrees with their views... |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Grab Date: 16 Aug 01 - 08:12 AM I've got a lovely bridge for you, Guest - just watch out for billy-goats... Spaw, you say that the far ends of the political spectrum are the ones that get things done. In that case, the KKK are surely the greatest army for good in the US, no? The radical wings of any group are the ones that you should IGNORE! It's the radical Republican wing of the IRA that's keeping up bombing. It's the radical Orange wing of the Unionists that's keeping up marching. It's the radical Buddhists who gassed Tokyo. It's the radical right policemen who killed Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney. It's the radical anti-abortion campaigners that attack and kill doctors. It's the radical Muslims who regard women as a disposable possession. I'm sorry, but I've got no faith in anyone who can call themselves a "radical" anything. Where I come from, "liberal" means that you recognise the rights of other ppl to have opinions different to your own, and you will defend the rights of ppl to have their own opinions. If this is a bad thing, then shoot me for being a liberal. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Aug 01 - 08:01 AM I'm quite pleased, after all these threads where the word liberal is thrown around as a way of saying people and views are to far left to be taken seriously, to see it being used in a more traditional sense, to mean views and people who are somewhere in the middle.
That's a comment about the use of language, not about politics as such, incidentally. I'm not implying that the middle is necessarily the best place to be. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: GUEST Date: 16 Aug 01 - 07:04 AM The virtuous and morally superior Bill Hahn informs us that: "We, fortunately, in this country, have moved into a gray area which is being adjudicated in legislation and in courtrooms rather than the streets. "
I don't know who your royal "we" is white man, but Kemosabe don't play that tune. I can't imagine ANYONE thinking adjudication is a sign of progress and civility, unless they are lawyers of course. ATTENTION: For All True Believers in the Sacred Grey Center: Folk Alliance has saved the best seats at the bar for you at the Adams Mark Jacksonville. All you have to do is flash your liberal credentials at the picket line, slither on your bellies into the hotel lobby (don't have to worry about who's got your back, because without a backbone, it doesn't matter anyway). There you will take an oath, swearing your allegiance to the FA corporation. Then, after getting your i.d. number tattoo on the inside of your wrist, you can pick up your two free drink tickets at the desk, and you are on your way to the morally superior Folk Alliance Gold Card Members Area Only. And you have a good day.
|
|
Subject: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 From: Noreen Date: 15 Aug 01 - 08:52 PM Folk Alliance vs. NAACP discussion continued here, as at 150 posts the first thread will cause loading problems. |
| Share Thread: |