Priscilla wrote:

Ah - goal posts moved from civilians with guns to war time, so here goes. Look, I am only a an ever so English woman - with little knowledge of weapons after 300BC but I have lived through 3 wars from beginning to end and so have a sort of opinion here to offer.

Even had we all had guns in the house -  my mum and little me - my dad was away in the war for nearly 5yrs and no home leave - and though we were but less than 100 miles away from the migty of a huge army, I can't see that community resistance would have been of much use. If The Few  had not done what they did and if invasion had come - what then? Civilian capitualation seems inevitable...... UK did have a resistance army in place ...Look up Coles Hill for details - and about which of our local one I now know a great deal.  

But that was then. And even then, I hope your shelters are in tact because war seems to  come at you from above. In my time I have have slept in cellars, shelters, understairs and under reinforced tables in my time- or not bothered and just sat outside watching the flak and arial displays. Had we suffered land attack I doubt if waving a gun about would have saved us for long.

And now something I really am curious about. For many months our WW11 area was swamped with US troops and airmen - kind, happy, friendly men White and Black - several of whom both, my gran invited to tea - I don't recall that any were armed though in uniform - and we were but a few water miles  away from the enemy. Do servicemen in the States ever carry weapons when out and about in uniform? All the men in our family were in the services and no one thought to have a weapon in the house later when it was all over. Two had awards for bravery. My friend/writer/ 'mentor,' a naval commander who had been one of the Enigma team of 4 concerned with U boat and submarine warfare at Bletchley..... I only learned the details from his Long 'Time'  Obituary, did not have a weapon in the home when it was all over. he deplored them.

Paul on this site, had a very hairy time of occupation and hardship perhaps has a different tale to tell.

And a final word of advice - should you be in the tropics and it looks like war, be careful with digging slit trenches - in any shape - they fill up with snakes first. Several friends put  children in first too. Every war seems to demand different circumstances. I am also pleased that we finished paying for the US Lend -Lease Bill in 2000 or thereabouts. Debt is such a dreadful thing.

 The first thing that comes to mind is that although the British army lost all their weapons at Dunkirk, they themselves were returned to England...by that gallant team of fishermen and Naval personnel, so they certainly would have been able to use the weapons (if they had the proper ammunition in 30-06 caliber). I would suppose that was the intent of the US and the British, but I have no idea why the correct ammunition was not sent with the guns? I can't believe that this basic observation regarding difference of caliber could have been overlooked by the many hands that it must have passed through, especially the military ones on both sides. Anyway, the weapons were sent because they were requested by Britain.

No, military personnel never carry weapons in the US, with the exception of the military police.

I have to agree with your opinion about having had a gun during an invasion. It would have been useless, in your case.

I'll keep an eye on my trenches, but perhaps the snakes will eat the rats, that also live there, and so control one another.

nordmann wrote:

Parallax wrote:

If Ms Rourke and I were an item we would probably make history. My age precludes that, so much for the validity of your assumptions.

Defeatist talk, sir. But then, I think from her essay that Ms Rourke prefers men made of even rather sterner stuff than your good self anyway so perhaps that is all for the best!

Parallax wrote:

Socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.

Really? This is bad news indeed for most of the so-called western world which has so willingly embraced socialist policies over the last several generations. We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed!

Parallax wrote:

The rest of your post is just so much hot air...perhaps I can bring my balloon around for a fill?

If this is a euphemism for your grey matter then by all means, it is more than welcome to expand at the expense of my ventilations. But be warned. If you come round Thursdays you'll have to get past a few "muslim types" on the way in - that's when we run our "how to remain almost a muslim while nearly a communist and still like HBO" classes. Pinko is not required apparel but a healthy dollop of it is always advised, just in case someone suddenly decides to gay marry a mole before the evening is out - such things can happen after the fifth Guinness.

Perhaps Ms. Rourke would prefer a "ventilating" stalwart like yourself? You could try at first with a whoopee cushion. This would test the air first prior to your actually ventilating.

You're certainly touchy about "Muslim types"...are you a Muslim perchance or do you have Muslim relatives?

"Gay marry a mole"...does one have to go underground to do that? Do you have experience in this area?

Is it just me finding this all unutterably depressing?

Please can we get back to the rigour (using the word loosely) of debate - the lively, friendly and stimulating exchange of views that we all enjoy? I have shut up about God and things, and will shut up about garden rakes if you two will stop insulting each other - please.

And whatever you say, Parallax, a night out with Nordmann and the Gay Moles would be tremendous fun, especially just before the fifth Guinness, or whatever - imagine the witty repartee, the laughter, the life. Much more fun than sitting at home, polishing one's gun.

So, oh yes, Temps, when is this night out with nordmann happening? Sounds great. I ought be too old but would enjoy the laugh.......I'd even bring my  husband. We all know where Pax is coming from and he couldn't change but it would be fun to show him how the rest of us are. He would have to make some exceptions and allowances, I imagine. A hopeful beginning. You depress very easily. Go, sharpen a pitchfork. Land girls used them in these parts on downed Gerry airman - they got on their bikes and followed the poor chap on his parachute - Essex is flat enough to do that. I know this for a truth and we thought it horrible at the time - as I still do. So no pitchforks for me, either.

Priscilla wrote:

You depress very easily.

I know. Irish blood.

Pitchforks on an airman is horrible. I talked of whacking a Nazi with a garden rake. There is a difference!

More than one Czech or Polish airman got turned over to the police as a "Gerry".

Irish blood, Temp????????

Used to have the opposite effect! Must have been watered down ...

Parallax wrote:

You're certainly touchy about "Muslim types"...are you a Muslim perchance or do you have Muslim relatives?

"Gay marry a mole"...does one have to go underground to do that? Do you have experience in this area?

I'm touchy about "types", period. Been alive too long in the real world not to suspect that piece of bullshit. The rest of your comment makes sense though. Of course underground, and thanks for seeing that! I lived in Seattle too, you know. Does that count as experience?

I'm getting increasingly depressed too, Temp.
Parallax, do you know any 'muslim types' and have you ever been anywhere with a predominately, or even large, Muslim population? I suspect you haven't since you have such a distorted view, all joyless fanatics bent only on carnage and destruction. It certainly does not accord with my experience, both at home and abroad. Then again, I've never been to the USA so I'm probably guilty of equally lazy stereotyping at times despite understanding intellectually that in doing so I'm ignoring much that I do know of your countrymen from personal experience and other means. Sadly, some of your correspondence does nothing to disabuse me of my error.

By the way, are you perhaps using 'types' in the way that I have seen used by some of the more extreme evangelical Baptist sects?

Priscilla,

"Paul on this site, had a very hairy time of occupation and hardship perhaps has a different tale to tell."

I was only born during WWII, but nevertheless through the tales of my parents and their extended family and by reading that many books about the occupation it is nearly as I was there. (I mean as child )
For Belgium once the defeat was accomplished and the same for Northern occupied France, the German occupation was in the beginning rather mild.

I did in the time for the Ex BBC messageboard some rather in depth research for the collaboration and resistance in Belgium during WWII.
I have to say that the nowadays Wiki is mostly conform to what I found (Wiki became better and better over the years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Belgium_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Administration_in_Belgium_and_Northern_France


And about France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_administration_in_occupied_France_during_World_War_II

I have to say that Belgium however was so densely habitated that resistant movements couldn't find refuge as in France and for instance Yugoslavia and Greece. Even the Belgian Ardennes were too small to act as stronghold of a resistant movement. There was on Historum a Polish lady who was wondering why there was no stronger resistance in Belgium as there was in Poland. I had to admit that perhaps the will for resistance was not that high as in Poland. The resistance both in Belgium and France only resumed  in full after the obliged workforce sent to Germany In 1941-42 and those people hiding for this obliged workforce were many times recruted for the resistance. For each German soldier killed, there would be 50 civilians executed. However von Falkenhausen could it bring to five civilians per case and even this five were chosen among the population in jail for resistance...
What I heard from my parents, there was always a daily struggle to obtain the necessary food. In the cities it was much more harder than in the rural areas. And my parents were also lucky to be occupied in the fish distribution branch...

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.

I have a dear friend who was a child then. One of his brothers joined  the German army and served on the eastern front, another, joined a resistance group in the Ardennes and young Harry made friends with officers who lived opposite and went to his church. though fearing them too. Family reunions after the war were, he said rather difficult between his older brothers.
I am blessed with a very long memory and can recall much of those times though I was very young. Other memories are stirred by odd things - sirens, certain old planes that pass over us to go to air shows - the what shall I call it, the squeal of tank tracks - tanks used to pass by our home.

Recently  I have asked much about some Americans who were stationed in UK that we  met in Oxfordshire - one of them had named his daughter after my cousin. That became a deep dredge but recall came and we were able to tell things that he had mentioned - not the brunette he used to take to Hurley Bell. perhaps.

Tthe types thing tag is a tad amusing. There is no mention of the Christian types who gun down school enemies with arsenals of very sophisticated stuff - or whatever it is they do. I am a Christine type - of sorts and so is Pax, I guess, can't type nordmann without causing an onslaught of posts that I couldn't respond to.

There used to be  UK  cartoons about Officers in the Desert war - WW2 - that my father loved and said were pretty true to life - called 'The Two Types.'

Ah well. to bed. Tomorrow I have a Catholic type coming and have also to prepare for grandson-types next week. They both favour weapons in the home. One has a hockey(Field) and the 5yr old also even plays  his ukulele. My cleaning lady-type comes as well; her arch enemies are dinner ladies who are supposed to supervise children  - she is also the catering manager at a local school. Oh what a busy life.

nordmann wrote:

Irish blood, Temp????????

Used to have the opposite effect! Must have been watered down ...

Oh dear, look at all those question marks. I fear I have said something stupid.

I didn't mean I'm an Irish-ish type, honestly . Well, I suppose I did, but not really. Gosh, that sounds dreadfully woolly - even for me.

A five-year-old with a ukulele - oh joy!

Talking of Moles, here is a happy mole story - they have just had Andy Moles on BBC Breakfast. He is coaching the Afghanistan cricket team, who may just be drawn against England in the next big cricket thing. Moles says England should be worried.

Winning over the Taliban with Moles and cricket - now that I would call progress. Oddly enough, the Taliban do approve of cricket (see article). That's a start of sorts for a better world, I suppose.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2884159/The-Englishman-leading-Afghanistan-World-Cup-despite-terror-threat.html


PS ferval, is it true that Afghanistan beat Scotland? To be honest, I didn't know Scotland had a cricket team.  

ferval, is it true that Afghanistan beat Scotland? To be honest, I didn't know Scotland had a cricket team.

They sure did, Temp, but then so does just about everyone, at just about everything.

Pax, should you want to take umbrage at disagreement above please retire o the bar where ther is probably some bottled or even on tap. Other members will know better what is provded.

I have seen a film of little Afghan children - inc girls - playing cricket with bits of wood and old balls in the refugee camps where 2 million were housed in Pakistan for 10 years when the Taliban was on the rampage; most now returned home. I assume that so many took back some skills - charities moved in and donated equipment and hence the film - that the game became established. Sport has its uses...... a world cricket series invites the world, of course, as is the same for football. Ocean barriers make great divides for the USA but S.America seems to cope - as does Canada - which also has  cricket teams.

Temperance wrote:

Is it just me finding this all unutterably depressing?

Please can we get back to the rigour (using the word loosely) of debate - the lively, friendly and stimulating exchange of views that we all enjoy? I have shut up about God and things, and will shut up about garden rakes if you two will stop insulting each other - please.

And whatever you say, Parallax, a night out with Nordmann and the Gay Moles would be tremendous fun, especially just before the fifth Guinness, or whatever - imagine the witty repartee, the laughter, the life. Much more fun than sitting at home, polishing one's gun.

 I just finished writing a reply to you which I lost when I pressed "modify". What a bummer. I don't know if it is floating around somewhere in the ether of the forum or it is really gone?

Here goes again;

A gun needs attention or it will rust. I don't polish my weapons, I oil them. Some of them are works of art...so to speak and I treat them so. Anyway temperance, I'm not evil or a bad guy because I have and like guns. I've had them all my very long life and never done anything bad with them nor would I even think of using them for any illegal purpose. I'm just a regular gun toting everyday guy.
It would be nice if you thought of me as just another poster without your opinion being influenced by my fondness for weapons, though I do respect your opinion.

I'm sorry if my issues with nordmann have depressed you. Ok, I will refrain on my end from continuing it. I do feel bad about changing the fabric of this forum so I'm doing what I think is best for all. I will say however that it is difficult to swallow superfluous scat from anyone. There's just no need for it. So cheer up temperance

Certainly Scotland has a cricket team, Temp.  In late February we are off to Dunedin to watch Scotland play Afghanistan in the World Cup.  We would have preferred to watch a NZ game but that was booked out months ago.  I don't know who I would be supporting; probably Scotland, since I usually support Scotland, but when Ireland played Italy in the rugby world cup the crowd support for Ireland was so strong I felt a few little claps for Italy were warranted.  Might be the same with Afghanistan.

My niece and her husband have just come back from Alaska to live here with their three children, Parallax.  He was concerned and surprised that he wouldn't be able to bring his guns with him and wander round NZ freely with them. We do not have bears in NZ.  My son does a bit of hunting, and one of my daughters-in-law's father is a keen hunter, but they don't seem to define themselves by guns and feel the need to teach their children to use guns. (We find it a little odd that my nephew is taking his 5-year-old daughter to the shooting range, for instance.) There's a certain wild west feel to my (very polite) nephew.

Parallax wrote:

So cheer up temperance .

Will do my best, Parallax. The weather here isn't helping - it is freezing cold, with winds blowing straight down from the Arctic and the Daily Mail tells us we are all about to be buried alive in snowdrifts of at least 3cms.

Every year in England it snows; and every year we are amazed.

It is awful chilly, though.

I think you and Trike and Gil should have a Boys' Own Gun Thread.  

Temperance wrote:

Parallax wrote:

So cheer up temperance .

Will do my best, Parallax. The weather here isn't helping - it is freezing cold, with winds blowing straight down from the Arctic and the Daily Mail tells us we are all about to be buried alive in snowdrifts of at least 3cms.

Every year in England it snows; and every year we are amazed.

It is awful chilly, though.

I think you and Trike and Gil should have a Boys' Own Gun Thread.  

Correct - this is so OT here.

edited - to reveal  that Temperance is not being besieged by iceland.com's logistics fleet.

Gil - I have missed the "c" out of "Arctic" - I can edit my post, but not your quote of my post. Please would you correct my spelling in above?

Many thanks.

Temperance wrote:

Gil - I have missed the "c" out of "Arctic" - I can edit my post, but not your quote of my post. Please would you correct my spelling in above?

Many thanks.

Done.

Parallax wrote:

I will say however that it is difficult to swallow superfluous scat from anyone. There's just no need for it.

Not all scat is superfluous, of course, and there can sometimes be a great need for it indeed (as any discussion entitled "Je suis Charlie" is bound to acknowledge). I humbly submit Mozart's "Difficile Lectu" as a supreme example of superfluous scat which is nevertheless sublime. If your Latin's up to it you can enjoy the joke here (though you'll need not a little German and Italian too):

There's also Mozart's "Leck mich im Arsch", which probably doesn't need any translation, as well as its companion work on the same theme, "Leck mir dem Arsch fein recht schön sauber":





.... and as Temp will verify some of the writings of both Thomas More and Martin Luther are full of scatalogical references.

And of course Bartók, for whom scatological music was hardly superfluous (nothing about Bartók was superfluous, the Nietzschean that he was) but was intended to signify uncivilised, uncorrupted, raw, earthy nature itself. You have to have patience to reach it in context in "The Miraculous Mandarin" but you can certainly see - or hear - his point.



Bartók's music was often criticised in scatological terms itself, a polite version of one music critic's opinion of his entire output composed for piano being "mere ordure". The composer however was reported as "satisfied" with that description as he, like Mozart, believed that the modal folk music of Europe - with all its scatological content - was as valid a basis for classical composition as anything that had come from the monasteries.

Away from music of course we can also recruit to the cause of scatological superfluousness the poet, freedom fighter, and "dangerous to know" Lord Byron himself, whose recurring constipation was enough in his view to merit the composition of a paean pinned upon his toilet wall (that's "rest room" to you Parallax) to a rather unrecognised and unappreciated but nevertheless important goddess of the Greek pantheon who we should all endeavour to keep onside:

O Cloacina, goddess of this place,
Look on thy supplicants with smiling face,
Soft yet cohesive let their offerings flow,
Not rashly swift nor insolently slow.

Isn't it interesting how eschatology sounds just like scatology that's taken an E first?

A brilliant scotological observation! One The Big Yin himself would be proud of!

ferval wrote:

I'm getting increasingly depressed too, Temp.
Parallax, do you know any 'muslim types' and have you ever been anywhere with a predominately, or even large, Muslim population? I suspect you haven't since you have such a distorted view, all joyless fanatics bent only on carnage and destruction. It certainly does not accord with my experience, both at home and abroad. Then again, I've never been to the USA so I'm probably guilty of equally lazy stereotyping at times despite understanding intellectually that in doing so I'm ignoring much that I do know of your countrymen from personal experience and other means. Sadly, some of your correspondence does nothing to disabuse me of my error.

By the way, are you perhaps using 'types' in the way that I have seen used by some of the more extreme evangelical Baptist sects?

No, I don't know any Muslim types personally. I did not say they were all fanatics when I used term" Muslim types", it was just a way of differentiating between them and the other mixed groups crossing the border. Where else would you find terrorists? Surely, one has to believe that terrorists have crossed the American border. It's just Logic 101. Those people are wild animals, bent on destruction, as you so succinctly put it. Anyone who would sacrifice his life for any religion, (and seventy -two virgins), is as ignorant as any creature in the forest.
I must admit that I do stereotyping. That just means you're human and analyze things and people. That's what nature gives us an analytical brain for.
I'm not aware how Baptist's use "types"... but I'll drink to that with you

I seem to be too late for the poo conversation. Never mind. This would have been my contribution. Perhaps it should go on the "What is Art?" thread:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-shit-t07667/text-summary

Caro wrote:

Certainly Scotland has a cricket team, Temp.  In late February we are off to Dunedin to watch Scotland play Afghanistan in the World Cup.  We would have preferred to watch a NZ game but that was booked out months ago.  I don't know who I would be supporting; probably Scotland, since I usually support Scotland, but when Ireland played Italy in the rugby world cup the crowd support for Ireland was so strong I felt a few little claps for Italy were warranted.  Might be the same with Afghanistan.

My niece and her husband have just come back from Alaska to live here with their three children, Parallax.  He was concerned and surprised that he wouldn't be able to bring his guns with him and wander round NZ freely with them. We do not have bears in NZ.  My son does a bit of hunting, and one of my daughters-in-law's father is a keen hunter, but they don't seem to define themselves by guns and feel the need to teach their children to use guns. (We find it a little odd that my nephew is taking his 5-year-old daughter to the shooting range, for instance.) There's a certain wild west feel to my (very polite) nephew.

You can cheer for the underdog, that's OK. I'm a bit miffed with the Afghans though. When the Russians were about to swallow that country it was US weapons...like ground to air and anti-tank missiles that stopped them. The Afghan "new generation" forgot that apparently. Yes, I know the US has made some bad moves but, if you are going to take us to task for that, at least try to credit us with some of the "good stuff" too.
The gun issue here is like a shouting match, the longer it goes on the louder and more senseless it gets. The anti-gunners make ridiculous statements and the pro-gun group fires back.
I think five years old is a bit young, unless you're raising a cowgirl:). I also think that a man should be allowed to own a gun wherever he lives. The 20th. century is the first time in history that any country tried to control weapons, (I think), which have been around since cave days.
You can say it's not civilized but that would be as above, another incorrect assumption.
Caro, don't you get weary of all the controls that governments impose upon us? You know what happens to sheep.

Parallax wrote:

I did not say they were all fanatics when I used term" Muslim types", it was just a way of differentiating between them and the other mixed groups crossing the border. Where else would you find terrorists? Surely, one has to believe that terrorists have crossed the American border. It's just Logic 101.

I have no great axe to grind in this debate but I would just like to point out that most terrorist acts committed in the UK since at least the end of WW2 have been by home grown terrorists, the majority having been born in Britain and having British nationality, regardless of whether they actually called themselves British. This was so throughout the devastating 1970-80s IRA and Unionist bombing campaigns (the IRA financially supported by many American citizens, let's not forget), and it remains so today.

I don't know the figures for the US but I'm not sure they'd be much different from the UK (or the other EU states, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico ...), when you really look at it most terrorist attacks worldwide are by local people about local issues, or at least how they locally feel about worldwide issues. So I'm not sure terrorists today need to sneak across the US-Mexican border before they can make attacks on US soil - most seem to be just disaffected US citizens who already have full citizen rights (such as to buy numerous semi-automatic assault weapons!). "Logic 101" it ain't, or at least it ain't a logical conclusion to me.

ferval wrote:

Isn't it interesting how eschatology sounds just like scatology that's taken an E first?

I did not realize one could get so much mileage from the word "scat". I guess that when people get hungry for subjects they seize upon anything that... passes by, so to speak.

Meles meles wrote:

Parallax wrote:

I did not say they were all fanatics when I used term" Muslim types", it was just a way of differentiating between them and the other mixed groups crossing the border. Where else would you find terrorists? Surely, one has to believe that terrorists have crossed the American border. It's just Logic 101.

I have no great axe to grind in this debate but I would just like to point out that most terrorist acts committed in the UK since at least the end of WW2 have been by home grown terrorists, the majority having been born in Britain and having British nationality, regardless of whether they actually called themselves British. This was so throughout the devastating 1970-80s IRA and Unionist bombing campaigns (the IRA financially supported by many American citizens, let's not forget), and it remains so today.

I don't know the figures for the US but I'm not sure they'd be much different from the UK (or the other EU states, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico ...), when you really look at it most terrorist attacks worldwide are by local people about local issues, or at least how they locally feel about worldwide issues. So I'm not sure terrorists today need to sneak across the US-Mexican border before they can make attacks on US soil - most seem to be just disaffected US citizens who already have full citizen rights (such as to buy numerous semi-automatic assault weapons!). "Logic 101" it ain't, or at least it ain't a logical conclusion to me.

Well, it certainly feels like an axe Meles Meles.
Your terrorists may be home grown but they are usually people sympathetic to the Irish for years of English suppression. The others are  disgruntled Muslims. Their bodies may be local but their hearts and minds are not. The assistance to the IRA from the US was mostly from expatriated Irish Americans or their heirs.
Ah...automated weapons. I love 'em. There's nothing like going out and shooting up the countryside. I tell you my trigger finger is sore for days. Loves 'dem l'il repeaters and do's big bores too.

You may be right about the terrorists not having to sneak into the US...most likely so many have already crossed that they have more than they need, and it only takes one to poison a water supply or blow up a tunnel.
Ok, forget Logic 101. I wouldn't  force that on anybody, but you will need to take some preliminary courses first, in gun handling, to get back into my good graces.
With respect for your opinion.

Parallax wrote:

I must admit that I do stereotyping. That just means you're human and analyze things and people. That's what nature gives us an analytical brain for.

Well, there's your problem right there, Parallax. The more usual view of stereotyping is that it is evidence of lazy, ignorant or bigoted thought (or a combination of all three) and is an alternative to analytical reasoning, not a feature of it. To actually defend its use as being the culmination of purpose for having a brain is rather unique, to put it politely. But then I have heard even weirder contraventions of logic from silly people over the years expressed tautologically and impervious to rebuttal from intelligence, and not just from Americans, to fail to be surprised any more. Personally I think your brain is actually capable of better.

Weapon control as one means of protecting society's status quo from internal threat is by no means a 20th century invention, by the way. The penalty for having a firearm in contravention of law in the 18th century in Britain for example was deportation, and in Ireland the gallows. Similar laws existed throughout the Habsburg Empire from even further back. Even Roman law was quite specific about who had access to weapons and why, laws that actually became more stringent as the republic changed to empire and military might (and the amount of weapons) increased. So while one can argue the ins and outs of "cui bono" in these and other instances, one most definitely cannot call it a phenomenon peculiar to the 20th century.

Or were you stereotyping again and hadn't got beyond a US stereotype in your thinking?

Parallax wrote:

I did not realize one could get so much mileage from the word "scat".

You are obviously not a Charlie Hebdo reader.

I'm adding this to my post rather than risk deleting it again.
Meles, think about how easy it is to cross the American southern border for a moment. Now think about how much the terrorists want to damage the US, mostly for their support to Israel. Don't you really think some terrorists have been sent across the border withy that end in mind?

nordmann wrote:

Parallax wrote:

I must admit that I do stereotyping. That just means you're human and analyze things and people. That's what nature gives us an analytical brain for.

Well, there's your problem right there, Parallax. The more usual view of stereotyping is that it is evidence of lazy, ignorant or bigoted thought (or a combination of all three) and is an alternative to analytical reasoning, not a feature of it. To actually defend its use as being the culmination of purpose for having a brain is rather unique, to put it politely. But then I have heard even weirder contraventions of logic from silly people over the years expressed tautologically and impervious to rebuttal from intelligence, and not just from Americans, to fail to be surprised any more. Personally I think your brain is actually capable of better.

Weapon control as one means of protecting society's status quo from internal threat is by no means a 20th century invention, by the way. The penalty for having a firearm in contravention of law in the 18th century in Britain for example was deportation, and in Ireland the gallows. Similar laws existed throughout the Habsburg Empire from even further back. Even Roman law was quite specific about who had access to weapons and why, laws that actually became more stringent as the republic changed to empire and military might (and the amount of weapons) increased. So while one can argue the ins and outs of "cui bono" in these and other instances, one most definitely cannot call it a phenomenon peculiar to the 20th century.

Or were you stereotyping again and hadn't got beyond a US stereotype in your thinking?

Parallax wrote:

I did not realize one could get so much mileage from the word "scat".

You are obviously not a Charlie Hebdo reader.

Well hello again...cat of my words. I'm glad you're still so responsive to my thoughts. Well I did stop, as I promised Temperance, so let this renewal be on your shoulders. That's ok with me, I like gay moles for whipping boys.,
Stereotyping just makes one more astute nordmann. It is absolutely a nature given thing to do. People who do not stereotype put themselves at risk of possible assault or injury. Nature gave us eyes and expects us to use them as a part of our self defense mechanisms. Policemen especially would be at risk if they did not stereotype. I believe that they all do it automatically, no matter what anyone orders them to do. I'm sure you do it automatically.
Geez...you're so good to me with your "lazy, ignorant or bigoted" terms. Would you please supply some more words to choose from? Throw in a couple of good ones to ease your conscience.
Thanks for encouraging me about my brain potential. I'm so beaten down from the rest of your post that it is a real perk for me.

Aright, alright big deal, gun control was tried earlier...but please don't try to push "spear control" from the Romans on me. Anyway, those were more or less dictatorial empires...and it didn't stop archduke Ferdinand and his wife from getting shot by a terrorist did it? My point is that it did not become a big issue until the 20th. century.
So England deported all their gun nuts huh? That must be why we have so many in the US today...ya think?

Parallax wrote:

People who do not stereotype put themselves at risk of possible assault or injury. Nature gave us eyes and expects us to use them as a part of our self defense mechanisms.

But stereotyping surely can lead to some dreadful errors, Parallax. May I tell you another tale about my bulldog, Gnasher?

Several decades ago now, at the height of the Punk Rock revolution in England, I was out walking Gnasher. I was a young woman then, and often felt quite vulnerable. On this particular afternoon, I was approached by a male whose appearance was quite terrifying: spiny Mohican haircut, rings through everything - nose, ears etc., horrible tattoos, the full punk works -  most definitely not a pretty sight to the gentle eyes of a former Flower Child ( ). "Thank God, I've got Gnash with me," was my first thought.

It was in fact my bulldog that interested the young man. In an accent rather like that of the Prince of Wales, he observed: "I say, that's an absolutely magnificent animal you've got there. Do you show him? My mother breeds pugs."

We had an interesting conversation about dogs, and then we happily and peacefully went our different ways. I used this encounter in school as the basis of a lesson on  "the possible folly of judging by appearances".





EDIT: My silly little story had a happy ending, Parallax, but many do not. Your remark

Parallax wrote:

Policemen especially would be at risk if they did not stereotype.  

is especially worrying.

And it is very tempting for many of us here to stereotype - and dismiss - you. Would that be a fair thing for us to do?

Oh Temp, ROFL ... that little personal denoument had me in stitches.

But I think you should explain to Parallax, Paul, Per and others,  that 'Gnasher'  is actually the well-known name of a cartoon dog, the 'pet' of the anarchic "Bash Street Kids" who appeared in the British children's comic, 'The Beano' in the 1960-70s.

Here he is, the original 'Gnasher', with his master - or fellow conspirator, 'Dennis the Menace' (it rhymes in British English):

There is also a Gnasher in Wuthering Heights, MM!


‘Hearken, hearken, shoo’s cursing on ’em!’ muttered Joseph, towards whom I had been steering.

He sat within earshot, milking the cows by the light of a lantern, which I seized unceremoniously, and, calling out that I would send it back on the morrow, rushed to the nearest postern.

‘Maister, maister, he’s staling t’ lanthern!’ shouted the ancient, pursuing my retreat. ‘Hey, Gnasher! Hey, dog! Hey Wolf, holld him, holld him!’

On opening the little door, two hairy monsters flew at my throat, bearing me down, and extinguishing the light; while a mingled guffaw from Heathcliff and Hareton put the copestone on my rage and humiliation. Fortunately, the beasts seemed more bent on stretching their paws, and yawning, and flourishing their tails, than devouring me alive...


Besides Wolf and Gnasher, there is also a Throttler and a Skulker. The dogs, like the human characters in the novel, are all ferocious and dangerous. No namby-pamby canines for our Emily!

However, I suspect (in fact I know) the little lad who thought "Gnasher" would be an excellent name for a British bulldog was more familiar with the Beano than with the Brontes.

How we wander on this thread - Charlie, guns, types, cricket, scatological musings - and now characters from the Beano. All very interesting.

Re scat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6oXW_YiV6g

Parallax wrote:

So England deported all their gun nuts huh? That must be why we have so many in the US today...ya think?

Though one would imagine an even higher proportion in Australia on that basis.

Parallax wrote:

Stereotyping just makes one more astute nordmann. It is absolutely a nature given thing to do. People who do not stereotype put themselves at risk of possible assault or injury. Nature gave us eyes and expects us to use them as a part of our self defense mechanisms. Policemen especially would be at risk if they did not stereotype. I believe that they all do it automatically, no matter what anyone orders them to do. I'm sure you do it automatically.

I think you are having a difficulty distinguishing between profiling and stereotyping. The former, as used increasingly by many security personnel, is predicting threat based primarily on behavioural clues, and while awareness of cultural differences in demeanour and expression is useful those who are taught these techniques are actually quite rigorously discouraged from racial or other stereotyping as this will certainly impede rather than improve predictive threat analysis. The person obsessed with identifying terrorists as "muslim types", for example, will let a potentially dangerous extremist like Timothy McVeigh etc walk right by them. Hardly astute, I would have thought.

As regards whether I employ stereotyping automatically the honest answer is that I am constantly on my guard against doing any such thing, especially if I find myself in a sticky situation where I might need to intelligently negotiate my way out. Profiling, on the other hand, would be a very handy tool to have in such situations - if one has actually learnt such techniques. However though inclination to profile potential aggressors might present itself automatically I'd suggest its effective use requires quite a bit of training and intelligence to apply.

Parallax wrote:

I like gay moles for whipping boys.,

It is gratifying for me to know that you have discovered a solution to your obvious gay mole problem. I am not sure how frequent their occurrence in nature but I imagine the rather time-consuming task of identifying and trapping them before you can then get on to the whipping of them will come as a relief to all those boys who otherwise would have had to accommodate you in your rather violent pursuit of what, apparently, gratifies you.

nordmann wrote:

Parallax wrote:

I must admit that I do stereotyping. That just means you're human and analyze things and people. That's what nature gives us an analytical brain for.

Well, there's your problem right there, Parallax. The more usual view of stereotyping is that it is evidence of lazy, ignorant or bigoted thought (or a combination of all three) and is an alternative to analytical reasoning, not a feature of it. To actually defend its use as being the culmination of purpose for having a brain is rather unique, to put it politely. But then I have heard even weirder contraventions of logic from silly people over the years expressed tautologically and impervious to rebuttal from intelligence, and not just from Americans, to fail to be surprised any more. Personally I think your brain is actually capable of better.

Weapon control as one means of protecting society's status quo from internal threat is by no means a 20th century invention, by the way. The penalty for having a firearm in contravention of law in the 18th century in Britain for example was deportation, and in Ireland the gallows. Similar laws existed throughout the Habsburg Empire from even further back. Even Roman law was quite specific about who had access to weapons and why, laws that actually became more stringent as the republic changed to empire and military might (and the amount of weapons) increased. So while one can argue the ins and outs of "cui bono" in these and other instances, one most definitely cannot call it a phenomenon peculiar to the 20th century.

Or were you stereotyping again and hadn't got beyond a US stereotype in your thinking?

Parallax wrote:

I did not realize one could get so much mileage from the word "scat".

You are obviously not a Charlie Hebdo reader.

Well nordmann, I don't consider that a problem, just because you say so...and you say so a lot. In fact you should consider asking your Doctor for a pill that would bind you a bit. I guess I pull your chain whenever I post a reply. That seems to unleash a torrent of verbiage considerably more than for a normal reply. I think that brings us back to scatology.The fact that you use so many words to make your points, or rather bash mine, seems to indicate a basic inferiority complex. You just seem to have to be right, or you will detonate...boom!.
You overkill a subject, I mean just look at your opening paragraph. You really pile on the negatives. It's like arguing with a kid that is not going to lose the debate...no matter what and you do that consistently.
You think my brain is better than that? What is that...a bone. I think I just scat myself laughing.

More:

Much is said today (positively and negatively) about “profiling”, but is true profiling being done in these instances, or is what we are seeing more akin to old-fashioned “stereotyping”?
Here is a quick test:  Do you think a woman could ever pose a threat to your personal safety?  How about a senior citizen?  How about a child?  If your answer is “no” to any of these three scenarios, let alone all three scenarios, this will be an eye-opening presentation.
So how can we more quickly assess someone as a potential threat if we take away the most obvious factor – appearances?  Ask yourself, “how would a visually-impaired person profile another person”?  What should we be listening for instead of simply looking for?  What should we be asking ourselves when approached by people we do not know?  When should we be looking for an escape or mentally/emotionally preparing for a possible physical attack?  This presentation will help begin the process of asking the “right” questions when faced with people we simply do not know, or do not know as well as we should.
Another interesting portion of this presentation will also address how we “stereotype” certain responses via various devices sold on the market for personal protection.  Which ones work and in which situations?  Which ones might “not” work, and in which situations?  What is the difference between what is used in the home versus what is used on the street?  You might be surprised at what you will discover when a different filter is applied to these devices.
Get ready for a paradigm shift in the way you currently assess potential threats – and responses!
This presentation is applicable to (but not limited to) the following groups:

• Classroom Presentations (Junior/Senior High)
  
• Churches/Synagogues
  
• Civic & Community Organizations
  
• Crime & Neighborhood Watch Groups
  
• Apartment Communities
  
• Home Owners Associations
  
• Multi-Tenant Buildings
  
• Residential Real Estate Offices
  
• Gun Ranges & Gun Clubs
  
• Martial Arts Schools
  
• Etc.
  

What presentation is that?

The author asks the questions:

"Here is a quick test:  Do you think a woman could ever pose a threat to your personal safety?  How about a senior citizen?  How about a child?  If your answer is “no” to any of these three scenarios, let alone all three scenarios, this will be an eye-opening presentation."

If you answer "no" to any of them, it's closer to old stereotyping than profiling. As I've said before, everyone stereotypes...unless they can answer "yes" to all the questions.

I printed the whole page, there is nothing more...no presentation.

"Profiling describes behaviors that may predict some characteristic or future behavior you are monitoring for various purposes. In high security areas, it serves a purpose, but requires a high degree of training to maintain a desirable level of effectiveness and fairness. It does not monitor by group or ethnicity.

Stereotyping begins by identifying a group by some factor, observing or monitoring them in the hope/belief that you will identify a potential or actual criminal.

These are just definitions. In reality, the lines are seldom neat and clean and the two terms become synonymous."

I wasn't expecting the presentation, but I would like to know its provenance, even so.

I wanted to ascertain that there was no more to it so I tried to go back but cannot find it. I'll keep trying though.

Meanwhile, I read that Jesse Jackson stated that he was walking down a street and heard footsteps coming up behind him. He said "when he turned to look he was relieved to see it was a white man".

I found it again.
The url is  http://WWW.troublespotters.com/stereotyping-vs-profiling

If that does not get you there here is the name:




Toggle navigation

Thanks for that link. I found this there (written apparently by the same author):


Over the past 2-3 years, I have given presentations to hundreds if not thousands of residential real estate agents in the Dallas/Fort Worth area regarding personal safety. These have been MCE accredited events, MLS meetings, happy hours, and office presentations. But I’ve done so with a slight “twist” now reflected by our Trouble Spotters team of instructors as well.

Yes, property showings and open houses can sometimes be a scary proposition to agents, especially for (predominately) female agents. And certainly there are “best practices” to offer when conducting business in these two environments, but let’s not forget one simple fact. You are not “just” a realtor– you are a human being. Doing proper due diligence regarding personal safety in property showings and open houses is great, but what about when you go to the mall this weekend, to the grocery store tonight, to Walmart or Target next week, to costume parties next month, or on vacation this Christmas? What are your “best practices” regarding personal safety then?

Safety, “true” safety, is a 24/7/365 mindset or it is no good at all. To do all the right things during an open house, but throw caution to the weekend as you have too much to drink at a friend’s party and then wander off down the street to your car after dark will afford you little protection. Whenever or wherever you let your guard down is when and where you will be targeted as they look for that moment of vulnerability and opportunity.

What we try to stress is a much more proactive and continual approach to personal awareness. And the benefit of our approach to this training is that it is relevant to your family members as you go home that evening, giving you something of incredible value to share with them.

So if you are in the real estate, mortgage, title, home warranty, home inspection, etc industries, you might contact a Trouble Spotter near you. We’re here to help, but we’re here to help you as a “person”…not simply a “realtor”. To us, EVERY MONTH is national realtor safety month as we value you as a person!



Is Ms Rourke a realtor? Does she do  "costume parties"? You lucky paranoiac!!

Must say I prefer this attitude to the problem - Diana Lamplugh gave us some training about 20 years ago when I was a councillor. I think the other lot are using scare tactics to drum up trade.