Originally posted by FMFmy dear, you really should stop assuming facts not in evidence.
I don't really agree with your restricted definition of militancy nor what your view of what its 'connotation' usually is. As a technocrat you may well be sub-consciously using the word to define who you want to ignore and who you want to listen to. If they environmentalists cooperate with you the way you want them to, they are activists. If they don't, they're militants. Too subjective, Scraibin. A wider understanding of militancy is more useful.
you have no evidence of whom I want to listen to and whom I do listen to.
I'll thank you to leave my alleged subconscious alone, as you've again no evidence whatever to assume anything about it.
More presumptuousness and pretension from you. I'm rather a better judge of what is useful in making deals with stakeholders regarding the matters to which I obliquely referred than you are, my dear lady. You remind me of a friend of my wife's who would insist at the drop of a hat she could instruct one in all sorts of things about which she actually knew nothing. She offered to teach me golf -- and when I asked her what her handicap was, well, she didn't know what I meant. Turns out she didn't actually play golf -- she merely assumed it couldn't be all that hard and that she could easily master it well enough to teach one who has played the game for over 4 decades.
And you wonder why I react to you the way I do?
I was quite clear -- activists can be negotiated with, not always successfully and certainly not by assuming they are only to be dealt with if they cooperate with me. What a silly thing to say. But understandable from someone completely without actual experience or knowledge of what's involved in such matters --mere presumption, no evidence -- it is why I keep saying all hat and no cattle, madam.
The fruitcakes who set up housekeeping in trees until they begin to freeze or starve and come down to be arrested after racking up enough news stories for the cause are militants because they aren't interested in negotiating.
To negotiate is not to decide to be weak, or to give in, or to cooperate. It is to agree to engage in a process wherein all issues are aired, all arguments heard, all interests are represented and both sides, if acting in good faith, try to get to yes gaining the maximum amount of that which they seek.
Earlier in this thread I posted a link to a story about Senator Bingaman and the energy bill, which was voted out of committee and now goes to the floor. He expressed quite well what I'm talking about regarding the process. So did Sen. Landrieu, who opposed the measure. She also spoke well of the process, if not of the result, because she gets another bite at the apple on the floor. She got what she could, retired with grace and is regrouping for another go.
With militants, there isn't any negotiating, they aren't interested in a process designed to get to yes.
Your presumptions notwithstanding, your judgment is what is too subjective, for it is made out of a mere tissue of your imagination. What I said is based on that which has been, is and shall be the case in the real world in which I live and work.
Originally posted by ScriabinMore personal abuse. Why?
More presumptuousness and pretension from you. I'm rather a better judge of what is useful in making deals with stakeholders regarding the matters to which I obliquely referred than you are, my dear lady. You remind me of a friend of my wife's who would insist at the drop of a hat she could instruct one in all sorts of things about which she actually knew ...[text shortened]... has played the game for over 4 decades.
And you wonder why I react to you the way I do?
Militancy is combativeness. It is not "With militants, there isn't any negotiating, they aren't interested in a process designed to get to yes". This is not the definition of militants. You are taking a kind of extremist political behaviour that you have observed and dubbing it 'militancy'. "A militant is someone you cannot negotiate with", sorry, this is subjective nonesense.
Of course, inside your head, or in your office, you can use the word "miltant" in any way you want. But in a public forum, people are going to question your definition of terms. It is a pity that your reaction to this kind of to and fro is to pour abuse upon those who disagree with you.
Originally posted by ScriabinThis is not a definition of "miltants" or "militancy". Sorry. Your arguments on this issue sound like the loaded, emotive, simplifications that spew forth from talking heads on cable TV. You are attributing a cartoon like extremity to the term 'militant' so that you can smear uncooperative or difficult-to-persuade factions or stakeholders with poisoned terminology. It is ironic that earlier in this thread you wanted to distance yourself from this particular kind of TV-compatable bastardization of political discourse.
The fruitcakes who set up housekeeping in trees until they begin to freeze or starve and come down to be arrested after racking up enough news stories for the cause are militants because they aren't interested in negotiating.
Originally posted by FMFmy dear, yoy speak nonsense, not I.
More personal abuse. Why?
Militancy is combativeness. It is not "With militants, there isn't any negotiating, they aren't interested in a process designed to get to yes". This is not the definition of militants. You are taking a kind of extremist political behaviour that you have observed and dubbing it 'militancy'. "A militant is someone you cannot negotiate ...[text shortened]... reaction to this kind of to and fro is to pour abuse upon those who disagree with you.
You would deprive the word militant of all its meaning and make it a mere subjective term applicable at your whim.
I am rather militant with respect to the language. Words have not only meanings but consequences flow from those meanings.
Therefore, I have to insist you are mistaken.
Give us the derivation of the word militant please - just write it out or quote it, please
Originally posted by ScriabinLook it up in a dictionary. Your characterization of the meaning of the world "militancy" is blatently subjective and distorted for political purposes. And please do not take such umbridge at being contradicted.
my dear, yoy speak nonsense, not I.
You would deprive the word militant of all its meaning and make it a mere subjective term applicable at your whim.
I am rather militant with respect to the language. Words have not only meanings but consequences flow from those meanings.
Therefore, I have to insist you are mistaken.
Give us the derivation of the word militant please - just write it out or quote it, please
Originally posted by FMFas for your allegations of abuse, I reject them categorically.
More personal abuse. Why?
Militancy is combativeness. It is not "With militants, there isn't any negotiating, they aren't interested in a process designed to get to yes". This is not the definition of militants. You are taking a kind of extremist political behaviour that you have observed and dubbing it 'militancy'. "A militant is someone you cannot negotiate ...[text shortened]... reaction to this kind of to and fro is to pour abuse upon those who disagree with you.
I was quite clear that your fault was to put forward your own subjective nonsense without offering any evidence
you impugned my subconscious, and while I haven't spoken to it yet, I'm sure tonight while I sleep I shall have to listen to a long whine about your mistreatment.
Hence, I offered a preemptive response on behalf of my subconscious so as to cut short what otherwise might take most of the night.
If you would like to avoid such responses in future, then please try not to be such a tiresome twit of a woman, won't you? Leave my poor subconscious and the rest of my psyche alone.
Does that answer the question "why?" clearly enough for you -- I know you have trouble with these sorts of concepts, the ones that are about your not doing to me what I've been going to extremes to do to you so you'll get an f'ing clue.
so far you remain, as always, differently clued.
alas.
Originally posted by ScriabinOh no. Here we go again. How many pages of abuse and insults is it going to be this time?
as for your allegations of abuse, I reject them categorically.
I was quite clear that your fault was to put forward your own subjective nonsense without offering any evidence
you impugned my subconscious, and while I haven't spoken to it yet, I'm sure tonight while I sleep I shall have to listen to a long whine about your mistreatment.
Hence, I off ...[text shortened]... o you'll get an f'ing clue.
so far you remain, as always, differently clued.
alas.
Originally posted by FMFyou see? you won't do it.
Look it up in a dictionary. Your characterization of the meaning of the world "militancy" is blatently subjective and distorted for political purposes. And please do not take such umbridge at being contradicted.
You can't
you don't know it
all you can do is repeat your nonsense
I don't care at all if you contradict me -- it is only the automatic gainsaying of anything I care to post, after all.
and what sort of weight can one ascribe to that?
why, none at all, as you quite simply reuse to back up what you declare to be the case
therefore, you cannot show that what you say IS the case.
I submit, members of the jury, that I am entitled to have granted my motion for summary judgment on the grounds that FMF has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. No evidence. Nothing. Nada -- she says, in support of her assertions that I should "look it up."
wow, that's heavy intellectual argument, that is.
thank you ma'am, that's all, your honors.
Originally posted by ScriabinUh oh. Here we go.
you see? you won't do it.
You can't
you don't know it
all you can do is repeat your nonsense
I don't care at all if you contradict me -- it is only the automatic gainsaying of anything I care to post, after all.
and what sort of weight can one ascribe to that?
why, none at all, as you quite simply reuse to back up what you declare to be th ...[text shortened]... at's heavy intellectual argument, that is.
thank you ma'am, that's all, your honors.
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinYou didn't offer any objective or empirical evidence to support your assertion that "Obama again demonstrated the rather breathtaking scope of his intelligence, his mastery of the medium, and his unflappability..." when I pointed out the fact that it was a tied and tested trite quip. Pointing to very extreme behaviour and then claiming that that behaviour defines "militancy" has no objective or empirical evidence to support it.
what would float my boat, snookums, would be for you to stop offering us your vast store of subjective wisdom absent any objective or empirical evidence to support it.
in short, pls put up or shut up.
Why are you turning to personal abuse, yet again?