 invictus says: The best phrase came from a taxi driver in Cairo, right after the invasion of Iraq three years ago, who upon finding out that my brother was half Iraqi and half American said, "Ahhh ... is funny. Your country is attacking your country." What utter idiocy. And it just keeps coming. It's like there is a virus on the loose that tweaks perceptive ability 180 degrees out of phase. Incomprehensible. I doubt if you even have read the source article. The media is the enemy! I read the clip contents, which was sufficient. The question itself is astonishing. How can anyone paying attention not know? If the question began with, "Mommie,....?" or "Daddie,......?, then the asking would be understandable. And, yeah, them too, Sir Skwirlinator, but so far they've stopped short of head removal. The prayers for peace were always present... didn't stop 9/11 though and the media is part of the problem, not the enemy. As screwed up as NYTimes is at times... and CBS and CNN etc. - they didn't blow up WTC. True, if wasn't done by countries, but certainly sponsored by countries. Terrorists cannot function out of thin air. As much as I agree with invictus that it would be nice (to let peace rule) - it's painfully clear that praying for it won't accomplish it. As the old saying goes "it takes 2 to tango"... same with peace and if both sides don't want to 'tango' - peace won't be achieved. No question that terrorism existed for a long time and probably would be impossible to completely... So who is the enemy? I believe on this side of the cross, according to scriptures "that we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mightly powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12) This a hard one for many people to grasp. Essentially it states that all humanity is subject to evil; the free will choice to embrace it, or reject it. This is the ultimate enemy of all humanity. I read the clip contents, which was sufficient.Actually, no, in most cases it is not. You lose context. I can take just about any article, and depending on how i clip bits of it out, completly change how someone might read it. So NO GD, reading the clip contents is not sufficient. But if that is all you do, I'm begining to understand how your view of the world is formed. @CatWhisperer While Clipmarks can be a way to get a quick impression of the underlying article or page to decide whether it is worth checking out (which I think maybe is the purpose), it also has a dark side in that it can also reinforce the tendency to think and argue in soundbites. That is how many people in the US have grown up understanding argumentation and the world--as a series of discrete little soundbites or slogans. I think that was what i was getting at.. you just made it sound better  The whole idea of Clipmarks, and egoldstein can correct me if I'm wrong, was to let people clipmark web content, but only the most relevant parts, not everything. That's why they have the 2k limit, to keep things concise. If your theory was correct - his idea would be totally flawed, because whatever people clip is meaningless without reading the entire page. I realize that sometimes it's hard to pick the most relevant parts and sometimes what's relevant to one isn't relevant to another etc., but I think the general consensus would be that one clips what one finds relevant and useful to the topic at hand and if that's the case, if people really clip relevant and important stuff - of cours... RS, your last sentence sums it up. I don't know if my theory is correct as far as the intended purpose goes, but it certainly doesn't mean the clip is meaningless without the entire page. It's simply like reading the abstract of an article to decide if the article is worth reading. You're right tpq62, it is just an abstract, but there's no reason to assume that since that's all it is - it can't be commented on or understood, that's all. You may say that you're "beginning to understand" how GD is thinking, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is you don't have a clue. In this case, bingo. My first and second comments were related to the context in the clip; a real world reality context. How do we respond effectively, logically, and justly to Islamic terrorism. The third was made in spiritual context. |
View the Top Clips from October 8, 2006
|
||
|
|
|||
