The Popes address on Islam..

---

Is CNN, the American Version of BBC? Just wondering...

I wouldn't flatter them that way. They are the Cable News Network, which means that they cover a lot of things superficially. Their Web site generally goes into more detail on stories, but you're not likely to find deep analysis on the cable channel or the Web site. But unlike most American media outlets, they do put some effort into covering international stories. (That is, when they're not covering "features", like the current fashions, or the latest celebrity goings-on.)Most Americans would benefit from reading domestic and foreign newspapers, and magazines that explore issues in a more in-depth manner, but sadly, few do. This leaves them more open to political manipulation and fear mongering.

I’m not aware if it is possible to make a living from playing scrabble Steve, but if it is I am too busy to do so anyway. I don’t feel the vaguest requirement to submit you my resume, so I will leave you to wonder on that score. As for civil discussions, you wouldn’t know a civil discussion if it bit you on your arrogant ill-informed arse; and I think we’d better leave invoices out of the equation, as if you were to send you an invoice for all the bullshit you’ve ever posted a2a would fold before anyone had a chance to say goodbye.

I've tried to watch it once. I think Larry King is some weird bigot!This could probaly be compared to the CBC!

A little off-thread, but I agree with the comment about Websex's post...from what I read...I decided a third of the way through that I'd rather wait for the video Since I'm here, I'll also wade into the issue at hand.There is no reason for anyone to make such a stink about what the pope said--everyone can misspeak on occasion. Dear Lord, I sincerely wish I could simply erase certain things that have come out of my mouth in the past.At any rate, no system of organized ANYTHING is without its agendas, its dolts and yes, its fanatics. You could come up with any belief--even that the inventor of the rubber band was smartest person in the entire universe--and if you convince the right people, they're going to be willing to stand on street corners handing out flyers, build websites and even kill to make everyone else believe as they do. So, that said, why argue about it? Is anyone ever going to be 100% right?Just my humble opinion.

> I don't feel the vaguest requirement to submit you my resume, so I will leave you to wonder on that score.

OK, but you brought up the topic. I hope your writing career is going well. On this site, though, given a dispassionate reading of your posts, would you think that someone who concluded that emotion was a dominant driving force in their creation was off base?

Whether to respond to the salient points I made is up to you, but calling me ill-informed and arrogant really doesn't get us, or the other members of the site, to a good place. It doesn't get us anywhere at all. It may feel good, but it's not constructive. If there is something you disagree with on what I said on the thread's topic, it would be nice if you would respond to those items. Otherwise, what's the point? Doesn't it seem rather indulgent of one's emotions?

If you tell me I'm ignorant, that's fine, as long as you list the reasons. Just telling someone they're stupid [paraphrase] is childish, and I would expect more from another adult. But still, back on point, how much can we trust the news media's interpretation of matters such as the one under discussion?

Pravda strongly supports the Pope's remarks.

"..would you think that someone who concluded that emotion was a dominant driving force in their creation was off base?"

When you start making some sort of linguistic sense I will respond in kind. The above except is a common example of why I find it difficult to respond to some of your remarks.

So you don't understand the question? It's where opinions are freely rendered, often not backed up by any fact, and often in the form of an insult toward a person with whom they have a discussion. For example, if you're discussing quantum electrodynamics, there is probably not much room for emotion, unless you claim that Richard Feynman is a jerk.

I'm not saying anything about a "Listen, this is how it is" attitude....", but...you know what I mean.

In any case, how do you feel about the media, and its accuracy and completeness in reporting stories like this one? The content of the Pope's speech in Germany weren't accurately addressed, even in a fairly long article in a newspaper of the caliber of the New York Times. Yet the point that he should have been more aware of the repercussions of his remarks was valid.

Look Steve, my point, clearly, was this: you often put words together in a juvenile fashion, and I find that a pain to decipher. It's 1am in Ireland, I'll get into the main points of this thread with you at another time. Goodnight.

Well I certainly do not agree with that, but if you would provide some examples, it might be a learning experience. As I said, "You suck!" comments don't get us anywhere.But the topic of the thread is a good and interesting one, and it could use some attention. I have great confidence that it can be addressed in a dispassionate way. So far virtually every reply you've made to me has been vitriolic. I know we can do better.

"History is never irrelevant."Agreed...and we need to be careful to learn from it in order not to repeat the nastier portions of it.However, YOU tried to change the subject of the thread by bringing in something irrelevant according to your own personal agenda. That's a completely different thing. Now you back-peddle after having been called on it with the old "we have to learn from history" mantra. I say we deal with the issues while we are still alive to do so...then learn the lessons. Try it the other way around and you might not BE around to learn anything.unsupervised - He meant the Crusades...get a clue.

Steve, you know as well as I do that you pounce on every post of mine and disagree with it for whatever sort of entertainment value that you derive from that. Frankly, I am tired of it, but I will never run out of steam when it comes to defending myself. I do not accept bullying online or in any area of my life. If you are willing to stop pouncing on my posts with that adversarial attitude I am more than willing to stop responding in kind, because I do not enjoy writing those words any more than you enjoy reading them.Now, I have asked you in two other threads would you be willing to put an end to this and you have twice ignored me. Hopefully this will be a case of 'third time lucky'; so I am asking you again, are you willing to put an end to this or not? I know I am not enjoying it and if what you say is true nor are you, so I cannot see any benefit to either of us in keeping it up.Now, on the subject of news reportage of war and other civil unrest; if you are really interested in this subject there are two excellent books I can recommend. One is 'War and the Media', a compilation of contributions from world class professionals in the academic and journalist fields. It is edited by Daya Kishan Thussu and Des Freedman and published by Sage Publications Inc. It is an invaluable book with topic titles such as 'The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: TV news and public understanding', 'The media, the war on terrorism, and the circulation of non-knowledge' and 'Information warfare in an age of globalisation', there are nineteen segments in all and it is available in the States.Another excellent book is 'Who stole the news?', with the subheading 'why we cant keep up with what happens in the world, and what we can do about it' by Mort Rosenblum, a foreign correspondent who had almost thirty years experience under his belt when the book was first published in 1993. It is published by John Wiley & Sons Inc and is also available in the states. These books were on the reading list in my third year of college and they are very interesting and informative. In fact, if this is a subject that really interests you, I cannot recommend these books highly enough.I haven’t time to get into a discussion about these things right now as I am off out to get drunk with the girls and am very much looking forward to it.I am hoping you will see this for the olive branch that it is, and accept it.

In reply to: unsupervised - He meant the Crusades...get a clue. That isn't true. The only reference that he made to an actual example was about his own grandfather, his mother and his tribesmen, all Native Americans, not Muslims.Violence in the name of Christianity is not in the past. Apart from the previously mentioned sectarian troubles in Ireland, there is the Ku Klux Klan and the constant persecution of homosexuals.

"Apart from the previously mentioned sectarian troubles in Ireland, there is the Ku Klux Klan and the constant persecution of homosexuals."These are not based in religion...though some (including you) would try to tie them to religion to suit their (and your) purposes. While what happened (and is happening) in Ireland may have started out as religious (or not), it has gone far beyond that into the political realm. No...OldFolks started out by indirectly referring to the Crusades.

"YOU tried to change the subject of the thread by bringing in something irrelevant according to your own personal agenda."I have no "agenda" and don't suppose you know me well enough to claim that I do. I provide comment on this board between meetings and phone calls when I have nothing better to do, and I do it for my own entertainment purposes and in the hope that I might help someone along the way. I assure you, if I had an "agenda" it sure as hell wouldn't have anything to do with this board or the discussions on it.>>>"Now you back-peddle after having been called on it with the old "we have to learn from history" mantra."I said: In reply to:"Humanities actions and the effects of those actions on humanity change little if any over the continuum of time. Rather, only the faces, names and dates very. Furthermore, what better way to demonstrate your point and possibly open a dialogue than by saying, "I have been down the path your on and this is what it caused, ...what it inflicted, ...where it brought us." Not only that, sighting your own failings robs, those the statement is aimed at, of the opportunity to dismiss your argument on the grounds that you are a hypocrite or trying to claim the moral high ground." How is that back peddling? It explains the reasoning behind my original post, and supports the original assertion.>>>"I say we deal with the issues while we are still alive to do so...then learn the lessons. Try it the other way around and you might not BE around to learn anything."There are many things wrong with those two sentences. First off, we are dealing with the problems. That was the reason for the overthrow of the Taliban and isn't that supposed to be the reason we're in Iraq?Second, history is consulted in order to make more informed decisions about current events. It's not the other way around. History is not consulted as a measure of the kind of decision made after the fact. If that were the case it would have no value, it's moot at that point.Thirdly, the biggest problem with that statement, as I see it, is that the "Father of the Holy See", theoretically anyway, is supposed to be a man of peace. He commands no military. Assuming he is a man of peace and actively seeking a resolution to the conflicts between faiths, what means are at his disposal other than trying to establish a dialogue with those who would listen within the Muslim faith. While I don't contend that is what he was trying to do (I don't assume to know his intent), I maintain that what I described would have been a more productive means to establish a much needed dialog. At very least, I think, that would have lessoned the reaction that has been seen in some sects of the Muslim faith.

Altho motives changed, crimes in Northern Ireland were performed in the name of Christianity (which is whats been argued, people doing violence in the name of religion). And the Catholic church has openly argued their hatred of homosexuals, and people following these views have attacked and killed gay people all over America and around the world.And OldFolks talked of Christianity's history of "subjugation, theft, torture and murder all in the name of, and for the glorification of it's own version of God." Altho very recent events may not count in the eyes of some people, events of the 20th century are history and they fit into many of the categories listed.The point is that the Pope made judgements about the people of Islam without even considering that Christianity's history is equally as violent and savage and their persecution and suppression of people still plagues our world.

" No...OldFolks started out by indirectly referring to the Crusades."Bob is right. I was not reffering to the crusades. Again don't assume you know me or what I think.>>>"may have started out as religious (or not), it has gone far beyond that into the political realm."Politics is almost alway the reason. Religion is the excuse that incites the followers to go along, be they Muslim Fundamentalist or Christian Fundamentalist, or Jewish or ...

"Second, history is consulted in order to make more informed decisions about current events. It's not the other way around. History is not consulted as a measure of the kind of decision made after the fact. If that were the case it would have no value, it's moot at that point."There is the delicate issue of timing. When a man has a gun to your head it's the wrong time to think about how you got into that position, but rather how you're going to get out of it with your life. Once out of it, you can think about how you got into it and figure out a way to avoid it in the future. Is my meaning becoming clear yet?

That has absolutely no relevance to the current topic.

"There is the delicate issue of timing."----- An aside: Now who's changing the subject of this thread?So your saying that as a nation, of soon to be three-hundred million people, we can not secure ourselves and debate our strategies, our policies and possible reasons for the conflict at the same time. If that's the case, then Georgy is doin' a crappier job than I thought.Now what does any of this have to do with the Pope's remarks? Please clarify.