----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:12 PM Subject: Re: The Doom That Came To N'Warlins - II
> On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> Warren, I *am* disappointed that you think so little of me. I like >> you >> and what you have to say. You show passion for things in ways most >> here seem to fear revealing. So no, I'm not playing a debate team >> spin >> card. That has been pretty popular around here of late and seems to >> have replaced the exchange of frank views for the most part. I >> don't >> want to join anyone's debate team though. I'd rather have folks >> here >> be my friends than have them as cohorts or adversaries. > > I appreciate that; the issue I had was the sense you seemed to have > that anyone not publicly engaged in breast-beating was somehow > concerned over petty issues rather than the human suffering taking > place in NO. Since I was included in that rather large group, it > seemed to me that the low opinion wasn't mine to begin with. I think the link that Ritu posted earlier is a good example of what I am hoping to see more of on the list. We used to have rather a lot of that kind of sharing here. I apologise to those who felt offense. Those who know me know that I am often not very precise and clear sometimes. I often find great difficulty expressing myself and even when I am possessed of a moment of clarity I have trouble writing effectively. My writing is much improved in the years since I joined the list but there are limitations I encounter when trying to "get it out" wherein I leave myself wide open to interpretation. I would likely have been better off asking "Why are you talking about gas prices when people are dying?" and leaving my personal disappointment at what I was reading out of the equation. > > I'm not interested in "debate teams" either, but when I feel I've > been insulted by someone who then claims *I* am the one holding the > low opinion, perhaps you can understand how I'd feel somewhat > incensed by the tone of the comment. > > I don't think public wailing will do anything productive here. Yes, > things are terrible for New Orleans in ways that few of us can > conceive, but that's been happening a *lot* in this nation in the > last half decade, and not a little of it has been elective and > self-inflicted. > > Given that we're bankrupting our great-grandchildren in foolish > warfare *and* there's a moron in charge for whom too many seem > willing to apologize and cover; and given that the fiscal > repercussions of Katrina are going to affect us for decades, is it > surprising that the focus of the discussion is more on these issues? > > The suffering of 20K people is awful. No argument there. But the > long-term aftereffects are going to affect a lot more than 20K > people, for a large number of years, and the next time something > like this happens, if we're still badly prepared, things will be > just as bad. It seems to me that these are important considerations > to bring up, and that shaking out the problems might be more > effective than words of sympathy. > Where are you getting the number 20K from? I would estimate 2 million to be closer to the actual number of people who have suffered seriously from Katrina. xponent Saints In NYC Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
