Over at the Tribune's on-line forum, there's been a week-long discussion about one of my recent columns: BAYLOR: Of European brood?
There are items of interest to recommend in terms of tone and content, although the weird, cyber-stalker mood overall has proven disturbing to me.
Ever wonder why we can't sit at tables and talk?
Have you ever been out walking, bicycling or driving, and changed course because something about the path ahead raised the hairs on the back of your neck?
When I read the original terse, concise question from "eodoc", that's the way it felt to me. Just plain strange. I had the sense of a set-up gaining steam, that someone was loading for bear and preparing to regurgitate accumulated annoyance in my general direction.
I have precious little time and energy to spar with pseudonyms. It's odd how when asked, those using on-line pseudonyms always respond that it really isn't a big deal; they just haven't bothered registering yet, and what does one's identity have to do with it anyway -- heck, I come in and see you all the time, even love your place -- but it strikes me as attempted gamesmanship and nothing more. They really want those who aren't on the intellectual down-low to become preoccupied with identity to the exclusion of the discussion. Somehow, this constitutes victory in games ultimately derived from personality issues. Sorry, but it isn't my idea of an honest exchange of ideas, and games like that bore me.
Hopefully, and sincerely, when things settle down a bit in my world, there'll be time to sit with the original poster face to face and chat.
In a crowded room ... and with my back safely to the wall. Until then, it will have to wait.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Wow, this seems a little paranoid. I guess you have had problems with stalkers in the past. I can assure you I am not one. If you can tell me how to get my identity information into my profile on the tribune blog I will promptly do it. I could not find where it would allow one to put in any information other than a picture and a nickname, let me know if I am wrong and I will gladly update with all my info. In the meantime you can see who I am here: http://essentialoils.org/about/dr-p
It seems you have taken my posts in the wrong spirit, perhaps because you thought I was just another anonymous blogger. I fully agree with you about these types. They are generally spineless cowards. I really was not trying to hide anything. My original question was a simple one and honestly I just wanted a genuine answer out sheer curiosity, I was not trying to pick a fight with you. But then your friends joined in on your behalf and things went a little beyond the scope of my original question. I think the vocal tone which we transfer onto a particular post has a lot to do with bringing about negative feelings which many times may be unjustified. For example, if you read my posts with an angry loud tone you might feel differently than if you read it imagining me talking to you with a soft neutral tone and a smile on my face. Anyway, I hope you will give up the stalking imagery and refrain from further insults now that you know who I am. I'm hopeful we can have a meaningful dialogue. I am always open to listening to logical arguments about any subject. Really I am not a bad buy and I don't think you are either.
Thanks,
Rob
It's truly an interesting conversation over there. My wife and I have had similar types of conversations (no, it doesn't include my singing "My Country Tis of Thee while making the wife wave Old Glory). But we've discussed moving to Germany or Austria, Mrs. Bayern is against it because she doesn't want to start from scratch at this point in our lives.
It's interesting to hear my wife's perspective on this, growing up in western Austria, college in Vienna and then moving to the US 8 years ago. She can probably make a better judgment than your agitator or most anyone we know on the question at hand. So, I've asked her which country she likes living in more and it's just not that black and white, not that easy to answer.
Obviously, Bayern, you and your wife are pathetic and ashamed. But don't read too much into that, because I'm just here for the friendly civil discourse you rotten socialist. ;-)
Dr. Pappas, a longtime pub customer, wrote:
I think the vocal tone which we transfer onto a particular post has a lot to do with bringing about negative feelings which many times may be unjustified. For example, if you read my posts with an angry loud tone you might feel differently than if you read it imagining me talking to you with a soft neutral tone and a smile on my face.
Previously, over at the Forum, he wrote the following (snipped from several posts over a period of days, and just as a sampler of tone):
I always find it interesting when people trash the core of American values and yet chose to stay here.
I do believe in American exceptionalism, at least until this current Marxist push by the left wing which I believe is destroying the country.
Honestly, how much intellectual fortitude does it take to believe in nothing? ... I would hazard a guess that you have not put in one tenth of the thought about your atheism as I have towards my belief in God.
I agree it describes the majority (but not all) of congress who are elitists, primarily from the left wing. The elitists are not patriots, in fact their desire is to tear down America and rebuild it to conform to their socialistic utopian ideology.
It's possible that my emotions got the better of me and lead me in that direction because so many of the socialist ideas stem from secular, atheistic world views.
You have to remember that many on the left only evaluate their policies based on their intentions rather than results.
And so on. Going back to the rebuttal about negative feelings and imagined tone ... should I regard such statements as those above as being uttered with an angry tone, or with a kind, warm smile?
Sorry, but I'm not getting the latter. I'm getting late night talk radio. You seem surprised that one might feel the breath of a stalker in the preceding. That's hinting strongly at disingenuousness, but I'll leave you the benefit of the doubt.
(I wrote the preceding with an arched eyebrow, if that helps)
As a side note, you may have noticed how I sidestepped the profile process in the Forum by using my own name as my screen name, and clearly displaying other pertinent information in my signature.
Now that formalities have been observed, I'll be thinking about answers to your questions and concerns in anticipation of the pint night to come.
Thanks
R
Bluegill, if it adds anything to this...
I asked my wife if she thought her Austria was the best country in the world. She said no. Although she's proud to be an Austrian, she knows that there are good and bad things about her country, just as there are good and bad things about our country. She likes living here but has no plans on ever becoming a citizen of this country.
If you ask her why, the answer is very simple. "I'm an Austrian, not an American" She looks at herself as a citizen of the world and refuses to compare her homeland vs. her current residence. It's really a pretty refreshing way to look at things.
By the way, Roger, we enjoyed dinner this evening at the Public House, we still haven't gotten down to the Bank St. location, but hope to this week sometime. Congrats on the new place, we've heard nothing but great things about it!
I'm starting to like your wife, Bayern, and I don't even know her yet.
In addition to appreciating the writing, I enjoy Roger's travel narratives so much because they allow me to reminisce along with him.
I always wanted to do an overseas study experience as a college student but couldn't afford it. Remedying that was the first thing I did after graduation, working six and seven days a week building savings until I had enough for a few months in Europe.
I don't know if I'd have responded the same way were it not for university, but I remember thinking just a couple weeks into that first trip that I'd wasted four years of education on a person that didn't exist anymore. My worldview had exploded. I was nothing more or less than a human being who'd just tossed all the other limiting characteristics out the train window.
It's intellectually sporting to discuss all the ways we define ourselves but freedom is the rejection of all of them. Lines on a map are for those who don't realize it.
EODoc may view that as pathetic or unpatriotic or whatever else he wants to call it, but I'd submit that's only because some of us are a little more free than him.
My grandpa didn't jump out of airplanes in World War II so we could sit at home feeling secure within the confines of some self-perpetuating superiority complex. He did it so we didn't have to.
Dear Mr. Baylor,
I think its somewhat unfair of you to put together a collection of my posts, made in response to various other people beside yourself and make them appear as if all of them were to you directly in order to further this attempt at portraying me as the late-night talk radio listening stalker. I never listen to radio at night, occasionally in the car on my way to and from work, more often to jazz and classical music than talk radio. But I do wonder what would allow you to make that kind of generalization about me unless you listen to late-night talk radio yourself? At any rate, we can move on to having a civil discussion if you want to cease with the insults. I apologize if I have offended you. I admit I am passionate about these subjects and when I saw your piece stating you are "not an American" it did upset me. I respect your right to feel as you do but it made me sad nonetheless. Its kind of hard for me to describe, almost as if a my brother were to stand up and say "I'm no longer a Pappas." It was confusing to me. How could this person who I have known to be a successful business colleague for so long be verbally tearing down the very society which allows for his success? It all seemed very ungrateful in my opinion. I wonder how many hamburger-eating, swill-slugging, NASCAR-gazing Americans have supported Sportstime Pizza and RichO's over the years and continue to support NABC. Then there's the remark generalizing Americans as "mindless patriotic church going" which took me from being sad to being offended (you never answered my question concerning if you felt this was an offensive comment or if I was just overreacting). I can see how some of my responses are also offensive to the secular left but if my assertions are untrue then I would welcome a discussion about it without the insults if you care to engage. I'm all for debating substance but not interested in a a game of back and forth subtle, and not so subtle insults. Your continuing reference to stalkers is what is disingenuous. This seems to be a common tactic today, rather than address the issues with an ideological adversary just paint him as a some kind of crackpot and that ends the discussion. If you continue this kind of nonsense it only shows a lack of willingness to discuss anything of substance and more an interest in verbal gamesmanship.
"Please mark EODoc's last comment as Exhibit 27 and note my continuing objection to the form of the question."
For example, if you read my posts with an angry loud tone you might feel differently than if you read it imagining me talking to you with a soft neutral tone and a smile on my face.
Did that. It made it creepier.
The last time I checked, both IU Southeast and the University of Tennessee were state owned, publicly funded institutions.
It would seem that wealth was taken from ordinary citizens by federal and state agencies and redistributed to create opportunities for Dr. Pappas.
Odd that he would accept them, rail against a system that provided them, and then complain of disingenuousness.
If Dr. Pappas is legitimately interested in substantive discussion, perhaps he can begin by explaining how his taking advantage of a socialist system to lend credence to his capitalist activities reconciles with the worldview that "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
First, act as though the government just handed me my degrees and I had nothing to do with it.
Secondly, are you saying that if Unversities were not government funded that somehow they could not exist and I could not have gone to college?
Lastly, let me clarify my position by stating that I am not against the state and local government funding of any institution or social program so long as the people of that location have voted to approve such funding. But I don't believe it's the role of the federal government to be involved in things like education. If federal tax dollars were used primarily for national defense and not for social programs then our federal tax burdens would not be so high and the states could adjust their tax rates according to their particular needs and values. Then those who want to live in states where liberty is the highest value could do so and those who value equality above all could go to those states that will take care of them cradle to grave. That is really what all this boils down to, liberty vs equality. The conservative values liberty above all. The liberal values equality above all. I think there's room in this county for both types to exist peacefully without either ideology being forced on everyone via the federal government.
Last time I checked, Indiana was lawfully incorporated into the federalist system known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, sending representatives (that you vote for) accordingly.
If you are claiming that the federal government is somehow acting illegally by imposing social programs on you, I fully expect that you will seek redress in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana here in New Albany (see Article III of the U.S. Constitution for reference), which you ALSO have access to as a result of your Hoosier forefathers' entry into the Union.
Seeing as how you probably haven't done that (which is pointless anyway, since the courts have upheld taxing and Commerce Clause spending powers for nearly 100 years), it sounds like you do NOT think the United States of America is the greatest nation on earth.
History has labeled the America you want us to return as the Gilded Age. Not a fun time for most, but the unbridled capitalists had a blast.
History has labeled the America you want us to return as the Gilded Age. Not a fun time for most, but the unbridled capitalists had a blast.
Now, why'd you have to go and drag ROCK into this?
Serious note: I'm contemplating an answer to Dr. Pappas's question below and may succeed in providing an answer if I get the Thursday column edited before the wine kicks in. That's because the Tribune pays me to write.
Then there's the remark generalizing Americans as "mindless patriotic church going" which took me from being sad to being offended (you never answered my question concerning if you felt this was an offensive comment or if I was just overreacting).
Just Liberty vs. Equality?
Really?
Liberty for whom?
Does the child of uneducated parents not deserve the liberty that only comes from receiving a quality education? Do they not deserve the liberty that comes from knowing they will not be forced to work in an unsafe work place? Is Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle the nostalgic America you want?
He’s not promoting Liberty for all. He’s promoting Liberty for the Rich. I don’t know that the poor working at the Triangle Shirt Factory, living in rat infected housing really felt they had much Liberty. Did they?
Hey, society is complicated. It’s full of tradeoffs. America has taxes and regulations and it's still very possible to get rich here. It's just harder to do it by screwing the poor and powerless.
You and Sarah Palin might not understand it because you’ve not lived through the society that you promote, a utopia you conjured when you look more at your tax bill than at history.
First, act as though the government just handed me my degrees and I had nothing to do with it.
That's not at all what I said. I specifically said the state and federal government created opportunities for you using other people's money, which they most certainly did.
Secondly, are you saying that if Universities were not government funded that somehow they could not exist and I could not have gone to college?
No, I'm not saying universities could not exist without government funding. I'm suggesting your choice to attend universities that depend on government funding for their existence contradicts your stated beliefs about socialism.
If you really believe that socialist programs lead to the detrimental consequences you've described, why did you choose to participate in them when you had other options?
Hey, society is complicated. It’s full of tradeoffs.
Exactly. Even defining liberty and equality is susceptible to such conditions.
This whole either/or pattern of thinking isn't based in comparisons of socialism and capitalism, liberal and conservative, or patriotic and unpatriotic. It's roots are in fundamentalism; ironic given the attempted use of it to place value on aspects of freedom and self-determination.
Dear Satarist,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that liberty only comes from a quality education. Nor is it necessary to have a college education to be successful in this country. As a child of "uneducated" (by that I mean non-university educated) and relatively poor parents myself I don't see the connection between a small federal government and lack of opportunity. I don't think it takes a large federal government to create opportunity. You act as though I am against all government, that is just not true. I just think much of what the federal government is into should be handled by the states.
Your entitled to your opinion and I to mine but I see no need to get upset about it and make false accusations against me. I do want liberty for all. its just that equality is not a value that I put ABOVE liberty. You have to admit that the two values are at odds with one another. The more equality that a government tries to impose the less liberty each citizen can enjoy. Conversely, the more liberty that is allowed the less equality there will be. According to our constitution, liberty is an inalienable right, economic equality is not. I'll have to side with our founding fathers on that one. I do believe, as they did, that all men are created equal and are indeed of equal value in the eyes of our Creator, but that we are only guaranteed life, liberty and the ability to PURSUE happiness. Happiness itself is not a guarantee or a right, nor is economic equality. Unfortunately, no matter how hard we try, we will never be able to guarantee a happy life for everyone, its just not humanly possible because we are flawed beings. I think that is a main area where the left and the right differ. The left believes it can create a utopian society here on earth where everyone is equal, the right understands that human nature will always prevent that from happening, no matter which type of government or economy we have and that the best we can do is to use human nature to our advantage as often as possible.
I have a hard time understanding why anyone, outside of the governing class, would endorse socialism. One of the functions of socialism is to force equality among the citizenry. Because you are forcing something that is not natural economics there must be privileged enforcers to carry out the policies designed to achieve equality among everyone other than the rulers. By its very nature, this does not eliminate an ultra privileged class but only narrows the field of who can be privileged. Since it is the governing class who impose the rules, by definition, they have to have more power and privilege than everyone else and the average citizen cannot join this club, no matter how clever he may be. This is exactly the kind of situation we saw in the Soviet Union. Why would you desire this type of situation unless of course you know you are going to be one of the elite in government?
With capitalism its unavoidable that there will be inequality among the citizenry, but at least we all have a chance of being privileged if we are willing to work hard enough and/or are smart enough to make it happen. What we typically refer to as capitalism is really nothing more than natural economics. It does not have to be enforced or coerced by an outside agency and is as old as human kind itself as well as pre-dating any type of formal government. If you are a goat herder and I am a skilled carpenter, the natural thing for you to do would be to offer me some of your goats to build you a house if you don't have the knowledge and skill to do so yourself. The number of goats I would accept to build your house would of course depend on the rarity of goats and the availability of carpenters in the area. Nobody would have to tell you how many goats to offer or tell me how many goats I could accept, we would just work it out for ourselves based on supply and demand. Its as natural as water flowing down stream. Does this mean that capitalism is perfect or that there is no place for government? Of course not, but I think our federal government has become far too big and involved in way more than what our founding fathers ever intended.
So, again, I am promoting liberty for ANYONE, not just the rich. Because in America ANYONE can become rich, regardless of your race, religion, sex, etc. I believe this because I have lived it and at least its still true for the moment. But the more socialistic we become the more difficult it will be to become rich as prosperity will continually be funneled into the hands of government officials and further out of reach for the average citizen.
EODoc,
After carefully reading your words, my obsevation would be that your screen name is too long. My suggestion?
"I"
Mark
Dear Mark,
Point taken. Looking back at the post leaves alot to be desired in the wording. Such are the pitfalls of trying to do this stuff from my phone and not being able to see the entire text of the post all at once.
Understand. Probably not a really fair comment on my part but none of us succeed on just our own efforts, skill, luck, etc.
Mark
Post a Comment