Just for the record
I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: 1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. 2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, Russia, China, India and Japan. Just so's anyone who might be interested knows. Now, I probably could wade through all sorts of things at opinionjournal.com and possibly post links for columns espousing these positions, but there are other things I'd prefer to do with that time. If anyone else were to take the time and wanted to post links to such columns, I would be interested. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Just for the record...
All the posts I read that have someone dismissing someone else's words/arguments as "malarkey" or "hogwash", I'm automatically discounting some. So if you are trying to persuade *me* of anything, me being a particular spectator of debate here, that tactic is costing you. Just FYI. Julia p.s. I also consider it to be extremely rude to publicly announce who's in a killfile, so if you want my continued respect at the same level, I'd appreciate you not informing me of that on-list. (And if it's someone else's killfile, that might be touching on my biggest pet peeve regarding legitimate e-mail, that of passing along what was in a private e-mail without the original sender's consent.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record
De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: > >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN >Security Council. > >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, >Russia, China, India and Japan. How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise? Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: > > De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my > > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: > > > >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN > >Security Council. > > > >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, > >Russia, China, India and Japan. > > How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise? I think the argument went along the lines of, no *single* European country has an economy as big as Japan's. (As I say, I haven't read the columns, just heard about them from my husband.) Population has something to do with the criteria, as well. Now, various columns argue for the removal of France, but they don't argue for the removal of the UK, the UK just gets left off of the new suggested list. I'm not sure that the columns are written by the same person, either, but there is a trend that has been noted by one observer who reads that page of the WSJ on a regular basis. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record
- Original Message - From: "Jean-Louis Couturier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:17 AM Subject: RE: Just for the record > De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my > > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: > > > >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN > >Security Council. > > > >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, > >Russia, China, India and Japan. > > How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise? The EU isn't a country. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record
> De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > > > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my > > > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: > > > > > >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN > > >Security Council. > > > > > >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, > > >Russia, China, India and Japan. Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: >> How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise? De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > I think the argument went along the lines of, no *single* European > country has an economy as big as Japan's. (As I say, I haven't read the > columns, just heard about them from my husband.) Population has > something to do with the criteria, as well. That would be good argument for the WSJ where is it isn't the economy, it doesn't matter, but I think the Security Council is more about military might and conflict mediation. Japan has neither the troops to qualifiy for the first, nor the inclination to use its political influence to qualify for the last. Jean-Louis I get mixed up with latter and former. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record
De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] >> > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my >> > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: >> > >> >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN >> >Security Council. >> > >> >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, >> >Russia, China, India and Japan. From: "Jean-Louis Couturier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise? De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet@;houston.rr.com] > The EU isn't a country. Of course it isn't. But it is enough of a political power that we should have at least one of its members sitting on the Security Council at all times. We could have a permanent seat for Europe where its members take turns. Europe would be represented but a country would be sitting on the council. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: > > De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > >> > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my > >> > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: > >> > > >> >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN > >> >Security Council. > >> > > >> >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, > >> >Russia, China, India and Japan. > > From: "Jean-Louis Couturier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise? > > De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet@;houston.rr.com] > > The EU isn't a country. > > Of course it isn't. But it is enough of a political power that we > should have at least one of its members sitting on the Security > Council at all times. We could have a permanent seat for Europe > where its members take turns. Europe would be represented but a > country would be sitting on the council. You also pointed out in another post why Japan might not be suitable. I've been giving this a bit of thought in the past 16 hours, and what makes more sense to me than the WSJ's proposal is just dumping France and taking on India, instead. If Europe were all one country, I'd argue that it ought to have a seat on the UNSC. But it would also only get one vote in the UN. As far as the "rotating European seat" goes, there is a lot of rotation of UNSC members, but there are 5 *permanent* ones. If Europe were guaranteed at least one, or at least two, of the remaining 10 seats (where there *is* rotation), how would you feel about having no European member in one of the 5 *permanent* seats? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record
De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > I've been giving this a bit of thought in the past 16 hours, and what > makes more sense to me than the WSJ's proposal is just dumping France > and taking on India, instead. > > If Europe were all one country, I'd argue that it ought to have a seat > on the UNSC. But it would also only get one vote in the UN. Indeed. However, France would never agree to be removed while the UK stayed, and neither France nor the UK would agree to having no european veto whatsoever. (Neither would the Netherlands, Germany, or any of the others I suspect.) An accomodation would have to be found. > As far as the "rotating European seat" goes, there is a lot of rotation > of UNSC members, but there are 5 *permanent* ones. If Europe were > guaranteed at least one, or at least two, of the remaining 10 seats > (where there *is* rotation), how would you feel about having no European > member in one of the 5 *permanent* seats? I think that Europe would object to not having a veto. I'm imagining a Security Council with 4 permanent seats, 1 European seat (all five with veto powers) and 10 seats for the rest of the world. Of course, I'm speaking as an outsider. What do Yurpeens thinks about this? Jeroen, Sonja? Ritu, would you care to give us an opinion regarding an Indian permanent seat on the Security Council? Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > All the posts I read that have someone dismissing someone else's > words/arguments as "malarkey" or "hogwash", I'm automatically > discounting some. > > So if you are trying to persuade *me* of anything, me being a > particular spectator of debate here, that tactic is costing you. Well, this statement is costing you. Since there are a number (which has increased lately) of people here who ARE posting a heck of a lot of baloney, some people are correct when they point it out. Since you are apparently discounting people who are correctly pointing out nonsense, as well as those who may not be, you are painting with too broad a brush. So you lose points with me. Just for the record. > p.s. I also consider it to be extremely rude to publicly announce > who's in a killfile, so if you want my continued respect at the same > level, I'd appreciate you not informing me of that on-list. (And if If I did not consider it annoying to whine about things like this, I might point out how annoying the above sort of whining is. By the way, I have been deleting unread a number of whiners and nonsense spouters' emails (not automated kill file, at least not yet). Guys (you know who you are) feel free to pile on here and whine and exchange nonsense. Maybe it will occupy you enough to stop distracting the few remaining people who are interested in reasonable discussion. But probably not. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 17, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: All the posts I read that have someone dismissing someone else's words/arguments as "malarkey" or "hogwash", I'm automatically discounting some. So if you are trying to persuade *me* of anything, me being a particular spectator of debate here, that tactic is costing you. Well, this statement is costing you. Since there are a number (which has increased lately) of people here who ARE posting a heck of a lot of baloney, some people are correct when they point it out. Since you are apparently discounting people who are correctly pointing out nonsense, as well as those who may not be, you are painting with too broad a brush. So you lose points with me. Just for the record. Perhaps a price worth paying: some points are worth more than others. If I act in a way that causes someone that I and the list hold in high esteem me to discount, disregard or disrespect me, then I have lost valuable points. I try to learn. If I act in a way that causes someone that *I* discount, disregard or disrespect to tell me that I have lost points with them, so what? If I act in a way that causes someone that the list discounts, disregards or disrespects to tells me that I have lost points with them, then I consider that my overall list-worth has gone up. I consider that people who point out the nonsense *in-an-argument* do us all -- including themselves -- a favor, but that those who merely call names or dismiss others or their arguments as stupid, inattentive, low signal-to-noise, and so forth *** without addressing that which makes the critic find them so *** do nobody a favor. p.s. I also consider it to be extremely rude to publicly announce who's in a killfile, so if you want my continued respect at the same level, I'd appreciate you not informing me of that on-list. By the way, I have been deleting unread a number of whiners and nonsense spouters' emails (not automated kill file, at least not yet). Guys (you know who you are) feel free to pile on here and whine and exchange nonsense. Maybe it will occupy you enough to stop distracting the few remaining people who are interested in reasonable discussion. But probably not. Of course not. I mightn't agree with your definition of reasonable discussion, nor am I likely to classify the same things as whining and nonsense that you do. In fact, I wouldn't classify anything that is posted in earnest that way: It's just not how I think. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
How disappointing! Julia started a whining thread just tailor-made to draw the nonsense-spouting whiners, like flies to shit. My left middle finger is raring to go, it needs excercise. Come on, where are the cry-babies when you need them? What happened to the posturing pudding heads? Nick, Warren, Dave, Ronn, Gary, surely you have something to cry about or some nonsense to spout? Here's your chance. You might even be able to pull in Robert and JDG if you really get going! Come on, it will be healthy! My left-middle finger needs exercise! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
Erik Reuter wrote: > > Come on, it will be healthy! My left-middle finger needs exercise! > You know, this is the kind of sentence that _begs_ for the canonical reply: "Then why don't you stick it inside your ass?" But since I am polite, I will not write this obscenety O:-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 17, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: Nick, Warren, Dave, Ronn, Gary, surely you have something to cry about or some nonsense to spout? Hey, Erik: PAY ATTENTION! I already replied, at length, to your reply to Julia's message, not 30 minutes ago. If your manual killfile already killed it, you can read it here: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20050516/ 014993.html Happy whining, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
Erik Reuter wrote: > How disappointing! Julia started a whining thread just tailor-made > to > draw the nonsense-spouting whiners, like flies to shit. > > My left middle finger is raring to go, it needs excercise. Come on, > where are the cry-babies when you need them? What happened to the > posturing pudding heads? Nick, Warren, Dave, Ronn, Gary, surely you > have something to cry about or some nonsense to spout? Here's your > chance. You might even be able to pull in Robert and JDG if you > really > get going! > > Come on, it will be healthy! My left-middle finger needs exercise! > You don't mind if I cut ahead in line do you? xponent Razor Sharp Teeth Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On 18/05/2005, at 10:49 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: How disappointing! Julia started a whining thread just tailor-made to draw the nonsense-spouting whiners, like flies to shit. It sure worked. Here you are! Hey, so am I. :( or :) Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record...
> My left middle finger is raring to go, it needs excercise. > Come on, where are the cry-babies when you need them? What > happened to the posturing pudding heads? Nick, Warren, Dave, > Ronn, Gary, surely you have something to cry about or some > nonsense to spout? Here's your chance. You might even be able > to pull in Robert and JDG if you really get going! Are we having a bad day Erik? You know, some bathroom time and a Playboy magazine (or a Playgirl, depending on your personal preferences) will probably take care of some of that pent up frustration, and if not, then try switching to decaf and getting out and exercising more than just your left middle finger. And by the way genius, if you are going to insult all of us cry-baby, posturing pudding heads, use your damn spell checker... you spelled "exercise" wrong. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 18, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: You know, some bathroom time and a Playboy magazine (or a Playgirl, depending on your personal preferences) will probably take care of some of that pent up frustration Playgirl's draw is more for women, I think. Most of the men featured in it are flaccid, which seems to appeal to a woman's sense of the erotic more than a man's. Given an evident digital fixation, I don't think Playgirl (or even Inches) would appeal in this case anyway. (Ironic, ain't it, that the greatest complainant about s:n ratios is the greatest contributor to noise...) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Just for the record...
Warren Ockrassa wrote > > On May 18, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: > > > You know, some bathroom time and a Playboy magazine (or a Playgirl, > > depending on your personal preferences) will probably take care of > > some of > > that pent up frustration > > Playgirl's draw is more for women, I think. Most of the men featured in > it are flaccid, which seems to appeal to a woman's sense of the erotic > more than a man's. > > Given an evident digital fixation, I don't think Playgirl (or even > Inches) would appeal in this case anyway. > > (Ironic, ain't it, that the greatest complainant about s:n ratios is > the greatest contributor to noise...) > I think you are being unfair here Warren, surely Erik's left middle finger constitutes some sort of signal, as long as he is using it in the traditional manner. It's the noise I worry about Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 18, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: I think you are being unfair here Warren, surely Erik's left middle finger constitutes some sort of signal, as long as he is using it in the traditional manner. You know his later post made me think it's actually a reference to the letter "d" on the QWERTY keyboard, which would fall under the left middle finger of a touch typist, and which would possibly be programmed for "delete". If so I have to say the subtlety of the reference was clever, especially if the other possible meaning was meant to be understood as well. Of course it was still noise. As is this. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
Warren Ockrassa wrote: You know his later post made me think it's actually a reference to the letter "d" on the QWERTY keyboard, which would fall under the left middle finger of a touch typist, and which would possibly be programmed for "delete". If so I have to say the subtlety of the reference was clever, especially if the other possible meaning was meant to be understood as well. I had an injury 8 years ago to one of my fingers. At the time, my job involved doing a lot of stuff with the keyboard (lots of e-mails, doing up stuff in QuickBooks, etc.) and I described the injury to someone as having been to my "cde finger". That put it in the proper perspective, I thought. :) (Of course, one of the people I was reporting this to didn't touch-type) Wasn't the middle finger the one that was stiffened in the astronauts' gloves for pushing buttons, as well? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 18, 2005, at 9:02 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Wasn't the middle finger the one that was stiffened in the astronauts' gloves for pushing buttons, as well? Was it? Wow. I never knew. I just figured they were responding to riding on spaceships built by the lowest bidder. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
At 11:02 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Wasn't the middle finger the one that was stiffened in the astronauts' gloves for pushing buttons, as well? Yes. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record...
On May 19, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:02 PM Wednesday 5/18/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Wasn't the middle finger the one that was stiffened in the astronauts' gloves for pushing buttons, as well? Yes. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
A brief summary of the debate: Just about everyone agrees that the UN Security Council is no longer representative. Although many people argue that there should be no veto in the UNSC, there are five countries that are strongly opposed to that concept, and they all have veto power over UNSC reforms - so that just ain't gonna happen. Likewise, any plan for dropping France and Russia is similarly dead in the water. Most observers reckon that on the basis of contributions to the UN, Japan and Germany are deserving of permanent Security Council seats. Of course, as the old Pakistani ambassador quipped - "That proposal simply makes an institution that is representative of the world in 1945 representative of the world as it was in 1939. :)" Keeping with that line of thought, Italy consistently argues that if Germany gets a permanent UNSC seat, then it should also. Moreover, this would make the Council which is already fairly heavily weighted towards Western Nations (in the eyes of developing countries), even moreso weighted in that direction. Thus, in my mind, Security Council reform is a moot point until the European Union finally completes their drive towards a common foreign security policy.This would result in combining the UNSC permanent sea of France with Germany, Italy, and much of the rest of the EU - perhaps even including the UK. Once this happens, it then becomes possible to envision expanding the UNSC to 25 members or so, with 7-8 of them as permanent members (pending whether the UK joins the EU seat.)India is basically a done deal to be in the next wave of permanent SC seat additions, especially since Pakistan and Indonesia are no longer viewed as wholly respectable nations - India would be the choice by virtue of its population, economy, and status as a developing country. The only fly in the ointment is that India needs to settle the Kashmir dispute first - but since I have already projected a future in which the EU has a single foreign policy, anything is possible. The next addition as a permanent members would be Egypt. It has he advantage of being simultaneous Arab, African, and Muslim - thus appeasing three key UN consitutencies. In addition, it has a large population,a peace treaty with Israel, diplomatic prestige, and the West can even pretend that it is a democracy. Once Egypt and India are added as permanent members, one Latin American country will no doubt get a permanent seat as well. The only problem is, nobody knows which one, although Argentina and Venezuela have helped narrow the field through their respective troubles. Basically, it would be either Brazil or Mexico, and I personally give the nod to Mexico based on its current performance of standing up to the United States in its current non-permanent SC membership, and the simple fact that Brazil speaks Portugese, and the rest of Latin America will never concede Brazil as their permanent representative. So, there you have it. That *is* how UNSC reform will end up - only the professionals haven't figured it out yet. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
John D. Giorgis posited: >A UNSC made up of America, Russia, China, India, the EU, Mexico, >and Egypt as permanent members, and another 18 countries rotating >in and out. This is a pretty interesting idea John. It sounds fair and reasonably representative of the world at large. Nice work. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
John D. Giorgis wrote: > Once this happens, it then becomes possible to envision > expanding the UNSC > to 25 members or so, with 7-8 of them as permanent members > (pending whether > the UK joins the EU seat.) How long a time frame are you envisioning here? > India is basically a done deal > to be in the > next wave of permanent SC seat additions, especially since > Pakistan and > Indonesia are no longer viewed as wholly respectable nations I am not too convinced that India's inclusion is basically a done deal [imo, that's placing just a bit too much reliance on India's diplomatic strategy and practice] - and who knows how long before certain nations start finding Pakistan respectable again, or at least important enough to pretend that they think it's respectable enough. > - India would > be the choice by virtue of its population, economy, and status as a > developing country. Let me add one more reason here, the one that is currently favoured by our [mumble,mumble] government : the GAGC. Um, that would be the Great, Ancient and Glorious Civilisation. ;) > The only fly in the ointment is that > India needs to > settle the Kashmir dispute first Why 'needs' to? > - but since I have already > projected a > future in which the EU has a single foreign policy, anything > is possible. I am still wondering about the time period you are thinking of - hopefully it's long enough to afford some chances of the improbable turning into possible. :) Ritu GCU Still Sleepy GSV Is 9am Too Early To Call It A Day And Go Back To Bed? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
John D. Giorgis posited: >> A UNSC made up of America, Russia, China, India, the EU, Mexico, >> and Egypt as permanent members, and another 18 countries rotating >> in and out. De : Jim Sharkey [mailto:templar569@;excite.com] > This is a pretty interesting idea John. It sounds fair and > reasonably representative of the world at large. Nice work. Indeed it is, although I think that the Arabs' importance is a bit overdone. I would rather see a permanent member be from black Africa which is a sizable portion of the world population. South Africa is better respected on the continent and it is a democracy. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
> From: Jim Sharkey [mailto:templar569@;excite.com] > > John D. Giorgis posited: > > >A UNSC made up of America, Russia, China, India, the EU, Mexico, > >and Egypt as permanent members, and another 18 countries rotating > >in and out. > > This is a pretty interesting idea John. It sounds fair and > reasonably representative of the world at large. Nice work. Would all of these permanent members have a veto? If not, which ones would? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
> John D. Giorgis posited: > > >A UNSC made up of America, Russia, China, India, the EU, Mexico, > >and Egypt as permanent members, and another 18 countries rotating > >in and out. > De : Horn, John [mailto:JHorn@;healthlink.com] > Would all of these permanent members have a veto? If not, which ones would? And if they do, could we hope for a toned down veto where a veto could not be used if all of the other permament members agree on a motion? Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Horn, John wrote: >>From: Jim Sharkey [mailto:templar569@;excite.com] >> >>John D. Giorgis posited: >> >>>A UNSC made up of America, Russia, China, India, the EU, Mexico, >>>and Egypt as permanent members, and another 18 countries rotating >>>in and out. >> >>This is a pretty interesting idea John. It sounds fair and >>reasonably representative of the world at large. Nice work. > >Would all of these permanent members have a veto? If not, which >ones would? > Good question. But as John said, none of the current permanent members are likely to give up their vetoes, at the very least. I'm not sure if he intended to extend to the new members he suggests. I think having *more* vetoes rather than less would make the UNSC more ineffectual, though. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 03:10 PM 11/1/2002 -0500 Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: >Indeed it is, although I think that the Arabs' importance >is a bit overdone. I would rather see a permanent member be >from black Africa which is a sizable portion of the world >population. South Africa is better respected on the >continent and it is a democracy. South Africa could conceivably be considered for a permanent UNSC seat in such a scenario, but the Arab bloc is huge at the UN. Although they are not formally an "official region", they Arab bloc has standing agreements with the African and Asian blocs to ensure that there is always an Arab nation on the UNSC. It is virtually impossible to consider UNSC reform without some sort of concession to begin formally representing the Arab/Muslim world on the UNSC. If Egypt is not given a permanent seat, then South Africa is indeed the next-most logical candidate from Africa - although there is still quite a bit of resentment for South Africa around the African bloc, in large part due to its apartheid heritage, and also due to its comparitively large size. Such a scenario is possible, though, if Poland, the Czech Rep., Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Bulgaria (and maybe even the other former Yugoslav Republics) formally jump ship from the "Eastern European bloc" to the "Western European and Other bloc."This might cause the UN to scrap the EE bloc altogether and create a new Arab bloc out of the African and Asian blocs. Thus, the addition of non-permanent seats that are formally reserved for Arab states might still produce the necessary compromise. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 03:21 PM 11/1/2002 -0500 Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: >And if they do, could we hope for a toned down veto where a veto could >not be used if all of the other permament members agree on a motion? Not a chance. The veto powers have veto power over all UNSC reforms (by virtue of having veto power over amendments to the UN Charter) - and there isn't even a single one of them that would agree to a watering-down of the veto power. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 02:07 PM 11/1/2002 -0600 Horn, John wrote: >Would all of these permanent members have a veto? If not, which ones would? Virtually every country under consideration for a permanent UNSC seat in the future has stated that they would decline the permanent seat if it did not carry the same rights and privileges as every other permanent seat. In layman's terms: yes, they would all have a veto. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 20:09 31-10-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: So, there you have it. That *is* how UNSC reform will end up - only the professionals haven't figured it out yet. Given the absence of smileys, I take it that the above is to be taken seriously. Well, in that case: sheesh, you really are arrogant! None of the professionals have "figured it out yet"; the only one who sees it is a kid with an unrelated low-ranking and low-pay job in the Civil Service, who graduated so recently that the ink on his diploma is still wet. Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? Do you really believe that you are so intellectually superior to others that you can see things coming that trained professionals with years of relevant experience would miss? Puh-lease! Jeroen "Voting is so much easier with Iraqi democracy" van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
J. van Baardwijk wrote: > Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? Do you > really believe > that you are so intellectually superior to others that you > can see things > coming that trained professionals with years of relevant > experience would miss? > > Puh-lease! Puh-lease! A lot of us were speculating about what might be. Could you kindly read the mails in context of the thread and spare us further demonstrations of the strong emotions JDG rouses in you? I, for one, would really appreciate it. :) And I would also really appreciate it if you could find a way to express your objections without sounding quite so derogatory. Ritu GSV Easy To Please ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
"J. van Baardwijk" wrote: > > At 20:09 31-10-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: > > >So, there you have it. That *is* how UNSC reform will end up - only the > >professionals haven't figured it out yet. > > Given the absence of smileys, I take it that the above is to be taken > seriously. > > Well, in that case: sheesh, you really are arrogant! > > None of the professionals have "figured it out yet"; the only one who sees > it is a kid with an unrelated low-ranking and low-pay job in the Civil > Service, who graduated so recently that the ink on his diploma is still wet. No, this is a "kid" who just got back from volunteering at a Model UN conference, who has spent a lot of the past few years thinking about the UN, and who probably understands about 10 times as much about it as any of the rest of us here, yourself and myself included. The analysis is not arrived at in a vacuum, but in the context of discussion with an awful lot of people who spend a fair amount of time thinking about and discussing these things. You're awfully dismissive of something someone's put a lot of time and energy into. Would you like it if someone dismissed all the work you'd put into brin-l.com because you're not a professional web designer? I consider your dismissal above to be of the same caliber. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 09:02 PM 11/2/2002 +0530 Ritu Ko wrote: >J. van Baardwijk wrote: > >> Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? Do you >> really believe >> that you are so intellectually superior to others that you >> can see things >> coming that trained professionals with years of relevant >> experience would miss? Well, to back up my point, I did manage to correctly predict the outcome of the NFL Realignment, several years before it actually happened. Again in that instance, I predicted the only possible outcome of negotiations - even before the NFL Owners had actually managed to reach that agreement. Thanks Ritu for pointing out that it was just a discussion. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > At 09:02 PM 11/2/2002 +0530 Ritu Ko wrote: > >J. van Baardwijk wrote: > > > >> Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? Do you > >> really believe > >> that you are so intellectually superior to others that you > >> can see things > >> coming that trained professionals with years of relevant > >> experience would miss? > > Well, to back up my point, I did manage to correctly predict the outcome of > the NFL Realignment, several years before it actually happened. Again in > that instance, I predicted the only possible outcome of negotiations - even > before the NFL Owners had actually managed to reach that agreement. Did you successfully predict which AFC team went over to the NFC? (Just curious.) Or was your prediction not as detailed as that? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 01:20 PM 11/2/2002 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: >Did you successfully predict which AFC team went over to the NFC? (Just >curious.) Or was your prediction not as detailed as that? Yup, I made my prediction on the day that Houston was awarded the expansion franchise. The only error in my prediction was that I had Indianapolis and Baltimore transposed. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > At 01:20 PM 11/2/2002 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: > >Did you successfully predict which AFC team went over to the NFC? (Just > >curious.) Or was your prediction not as detailed as that? > > Yup, I made my prediction on the day that Houston was awarded the expansion > franchise. The only error in my prediction was that I had Indianapolis > and Baltimore transposed. Well, there are two ways you can go with the Indianapolis vs. Baltimore thing: 1) Once Cleveland got a new Browns team, the Ravens were a natural rival. So the thing to do is put Baltimore in the same division as the Browns. 2) Or you could go with geography; it makes a *lot* more sense under those terms to put Indianapolis with the North, rather than the South, and Baltimore with the South, rather than the North. I think that in many ways, 2) makes a lot more sense. I was practically choking on Indianapolis being in a South division, myself, until I analyzed the situation with who was in AFC North, and what rivalries might want preserving. But, given that you predicted everything *but* that as soon as the announcement was made, I'm impressed. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 10:32 AM 11/2/2002 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: >No, this is a "kid" who just got back from volunteering at a Model UN >conference, who has spent a lot of the past few years thinking about the >UN, and who probably understands about 10 times as much about it as any >of the rest of us here, yourself and myself included. The analysis is >not arrived at in a vacuum, but in the context of discussion with an >awful lot of people who spend a fair amount of time thinking about and >discussing these things. Thank you. Just to clarify: -I have 12 college credits in "United Nations Studies", -Have been an extremely active participant in the "Model United Nations" programs of the United States for 11 years now, which runs simulations of the UN to better learn how the UN actually works and functions -In particular, I have organized educational programs for hundreds of high school students and college students about the United Nations, particularly over the past six years. -Am the author of the 30 page section entitled "Europe and the United Nations" in the United Nations Association of the United States (UNA-USA) _Guide to Delegate Preparation_, published in August of 2002. So thank you, Julia, for pointing out that I actually do know a bit about what I am speaking thanks to the vast amount of reading, discussion, and experience I have related to this topic. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 10:32 02-11-2002 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
You're awfully dismissive of something someone's put a lot of time and
energy into.
I am not dismissing the work Giorgis put into studying the UN. What I am
saying is that it sounds awfully arrogant when an amateur claims to have
the One True Answer ("this *is* how " -- notice the emphasis on
the word "is") and then add that the professionals "haven't figured it out
yet".
He could easily have avoided coming across as arrogant, simply by stating
that *in his opinion* "this is how the UNSC will end up", rather than
making it look as if he knows better than all those professionals.
Would you like it if someone dismissed all the work you'd put into
brin-l.com because you're not a professional web designer?
There is one big difference here: Giorgis is not a professional, but
implies that he is superior to the professionals. I am not a professional
web designer, but you will never hear me imply that I am better at web
design than the professionals.
Jeroen "Architectus Websiticum" van Baardwijk
__
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 04:28 AM 11/2/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? Do you have any idea how arrogant _your_ post sounds? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 09:38 PM 10/31/02, Ritu Ko wrote: GCU Still Sleepy GSV Is 9am Too Early To Call It A Day And Go Back To Bed? "Sunrise is Nature's way of telling you it's bedtime." --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:41:57PM -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote: > At 04:28 AM 11/2/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: > > >Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? > > > Do you have any idea how arrogant _your_ post sounds? > Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to make a really good chocolate chip cookie? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
In a message dated 11/2/2002 10:17:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << >Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? Do you have any idea how arrogant _your_ post sounds? >> "Judy, Judy,---" Thipht. "Jud---" Swith..THUNK! "Argh." Do you have any idea how arrow Grant this post tries to sound? William Taylor --- "Ninty two" ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Erik Reuter wrote: >On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:41:57PM -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote: >>At 04:28 AM 11/2/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: >>>Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? >> >>Do you have any idea how arrogant _your_ post sounds? >> >Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to >make a really good chocolate chip cookie? No, but my wife does. Every year on the day before Thanksgiving, she and her father spend the evening making about a jillion chocolate chip cookies for the holidays. The best part is that I get to sit next to the cooling rack with a large glass of milk and, um, weed out the weak and unfit from the herd. ;-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
William Taylor wrote: > "Judy, Judy,---" > > Thipht. > > "Jud---" > > Swith..THUNK! > > "Argh." > > Do you have any idea how arrow Grant this post tries to sound? > Sorry, William, but you tried *waay* too hard for this one. Gonna have to ding you for it. ;-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:41:57PM -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > At 04:28 AM 11/2/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: > > > > >Do you have any idea how arrogant your post sounds? > > > > > > Do you have any idea how arrogant _your_ post sounds? > > > > Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to make a > really good chocolate chip cookie? I might have a good recipe. I made a bunch of cookies for fellow dorm-mates around final exam time one year, using the kitchen at my fiance's apartment (this was about 6 weeks before the wedding) and I was given a few recipes by someone whose grandparents had a bakery. If I still have that paper, I could give you a good recipe. Tell me if I ought to look. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Erik Reuter wrote: Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to make a really good chocolate chip cookie? Le Dimanche 3 novembre 2002, à 08:58 , Jim Sharkey a écrit : No, but my wife does. Every year on the day before Thanksgiving, she and her father spend the evening making about a jillion chocolate chip cookies for the holidays. The best part is that I get to sit next to the cooling rack with a large glass of milk and, um, weed out the weak and unfit from the herd. ;-) It's a hard job, but someone's got to do it. Let me know if ever you can't handle it anymore and need some help. Jean-Louis, Cookie culler extraordinaire ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Erik Reuter wrote: Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to make a really good chocolate chip cookie? Le Dimanche 3 novembre 2002, à 11:39 , Julia Thompson a écrit : I might have a good recipe. I made a bunch of cookies for fellow dorm-mates around final exam time one year, using the kitchen at my fiance's apartment (this was about 6 weeks before the wedding) and I was given a few recipes by someone whose grandparents had a bakery. If I still have that paper, I could give you a good recipe. Tell me if I ought to look. Hello? You're telling us that you have a good chocolate chip cookie recipe (damn, I still read that word as ree-SIPE) and you think we might not want to know it? If that's not worth a ding I don't know what is! :-p In other words, yes please, I would like to know your recipe. Jean-Louis Gourmand ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: > > > Erik Reuter wrote: > >> Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to make a > >> really good chocolate chip cookie? > > > Le Dimanche 3 novembre 2002, à 11:39 , Julia Thompson a écrit : > > I might have a good recipe. I made a bunch of cookies for fellow > > dorm-mates around final exam time one year, using the kitchen at my > > fiance's apartment (this was about 6 weeks before the wedding) and I was > > given a few recipes by someone whose grandparents had a bakery. If I > > still have that paper, I could give you a good recipe. > > > > Tell me if I ought to look. > > Hello? You're telling us that you have a good chocolate chip cookie > recipe > (damn, I still read that word as ree-SIPE) and you think we might not > want to > know it? I *might* have it. Tell me if it's worth my time *looking* for it. > If that's not worth a ding I don't know what is! :-p > > In other words, yes please, I would like to know your recipe. OK, then, I'll take the time to look for it later today. Right now, I need to shower, dress, and get Sammy dressed into something a little more appropriate for watching the Cowboys game. Julia running on < 5 hours' sleep, BTW ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Le Dimanche 3 novembre 2002, à 12:00 , Julia Thompson a écrit : Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to make a really good chocolate chip cookie? Le Dimanche 3 novembre 2002, à 11:39 , Julia Thompson a écrit : I might have a good recipe. I made a bunch of cookies for fellow dorm-mates around final exam time one year, using the kitchen at my fiance's apartment (this was about 6 weeks before the wedding) and I was given a few recipes by someone whose grandparents had a bakery. If I still have that paper, I could give you a good recipe. Tell me if I ought to look. Hello? You're telling us that you have a good chocolate chip cookie recipe (damn, I still read that word as ree-SIPE) and you think we might not want to know it? I *might* have it. Tell me if it's worth my time *looking* for it. If that's not worth a ding I don't know what is! :-p In other words, yes please, I would like to know your recipe. OK, then, I'll take the time to look for it later today. Right now, I need to shower, dress, and get Sammy dressed into something a little more appropriate for watching the Cowboys game. Julia running on < 5 hours' sleep, BTW In that case, I guess it can wait until later this week. I will be looking forward to it as the increasingly cold weather is perfect out-of-the-oven-cookie waether. Jean-Louis P(l)ushy Monster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 10:39:18AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > given a few recipes by someone whose grandparents had a bakery. If I > still have that paper, I could give you a good recipe. > > Tell me if I ought to look. Yes! Never turn down a good chocolate chip cookie recipe! -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 07:58 AM 11/3/02, Jim Sharkey wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: >> >Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to >make a really good chocolate chip cookie? No, but my wife does. Every year on the day before Thanksgiving, she and her father spend the evening making about a jillion chocolate chip cookies for the holidays. The best part is that I get to sit next to the cooling rack with a large glass of milk and, um, weed out the weak and unfit from the herd. ;-) My mother always made a batch of bon-bon-type candy, with coconut inside and chocolate coating. Arguably a better use of the dining room table than as a support for computer equipment. Sigh . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
In a message dated 11/3/2002 7:07:50 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Sorry, William, but you tried *waay* too hard for this one. Gonna have to ding you for it. ;-) >> Well I did say "tries" I'll go back to trying to win the Eatin' an Arrow contest. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:jxg9@;po.cwru.edu] > > At 02:07 PM 11/1/2002 -0600 Horn, John wrote: > >Would all of these permanent members have a veto? If not, > which ones would? > > Virtually every country under consideration for a permanent > UNSC seat in > the future has stated that they would decline the permanent > seat if it did > not carry the same rights and privileges as every other > permanent seat. As Jim said earlier, wouldn't that make it next to impossible to get anything done on the UNSC? I can't imagine almost any even remotely controversial proposal not being vetoed by one of that group? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: >>Le Dimanche 3 novembre 2002, à 08:58 , Jim Sharkey a écrit : >>No, but my wife does. Every year on the day before Thanksgiving, >>she and her father spend the evening making about a jillion >>chocolate chip cookies for the holidays. The best part is that I >>get to sit next to the cooling rack with a large glass of milk >>and, um, weed out the weak and unfit from the herd. ;-) > >It's a hard job, but someone's got to do it. Let me know if ever >you can't handle it anymore and need some help. hehehe, should I ever find myself sudenly diabetic or something, I'll drop you a line. Are you willing to take a trans-Atlantic flight though? :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 03:47 PM 11/3/2002 -0600 Horn, John wrote: >As Jim said earlier, wouldn't that make it next to impossible to get >anything done on the UNSC? I can't imagine almost any even remotely >controversial proposal not being vetoed by one of that group? There is a bit of game theory involved. Obviously, if everyone had a veto than everyone would lose, but nevertheless, individuals still want the veto power. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
- Original Message -
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
> At 10:32 02-11-2002 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> >You're awfully dismissive of something someone's put a lot of time and
> >energy into.
>
> I am not dismissing the work Giorgis put into studying the UN. What I am
> saying is that it sounds awfully arrogant when an amateur claims to have
> the One True Answer ("this *is* how " -- notice the emphasis on
> the word "is") and then add that the professionals "haven't figured it
out
> yet".
>
> He could easily have avoided coming across as arrogant, simply by stating
> that *in his opinion* "this is how the UNSC will end up", rather than
> making it look as if he knows better than all those professionals.
John is a lot subtler than you give him credit for. I didn't quite
ROTFLMAO when he wrote "This is how it will turn out", but it is a pretty
good example of dry wit. BTW, dry wit depends on the humor being subtle,
so a smiley is out of place with dry wit.
I think it is ironic that you fault John for making a joke at his own
expense.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Jim wrote: >>>Le Dimanche 3 novembre 2002, à 08:58 , Jim Sharkey a écrit : >>>No, but my wife does. Every year on the day before Thanksgiving, >>>she and her father spend the evening making about a jillion >>>chocolate chip cookies for the holidays. The best part is that I >>>get to sit next to the cooling rack with a large glass of milk >>>and, um, weed out the weak and unfit from the herd. ;-) Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: >>It's a hard job, but someone's got to do it. Let me know if ever >>you can't handle it anymore and need some help. Jim wrote: >hehehe, should I ever find myself sudenly diabetic or something, >I'll drop you a line. >Are you willing to take a trans-Atlantic flight though? :) Hmm, maybe not. But then again, Thanksgiving is a North American holiday so I'm guessing you're from the States. I'm in Montreal, so I could probably drive. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
De : Horn, John [mailto:JHorn@;healthlink.com] > As Jim said earlier, wouldn't that make it next to impossible to get > anything done on the UNSC? I can't imagine almost any even remotely > controversial proposal not being vetoed by one of that group? That's the way the UN is now. Everyone wants the UN to work, as long as it doesn't meddele in one's business. When the UN was created a lot of effort was put in finding ways to prevent the UN to meddle in the major powers' business. Since the same state of mind prevails today, not only will we not be able to get the UN to work properly, we will not be able to replace it with anything better. Just look at how the US has reacted to the International Court. Americans, like others that don't make it in the papers as often (mostly because for the others it just figures that they wouldn't go along), will not under any circumstance let go an ounce of their sovereignty. Jean-Louis Canadians, on the other hand, have little sovereignty to begin with, so they are usually at the forefront when it comes to promoting supranational organisms. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 18:57 03-11-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> I am not dismissing the work Giorgis put into studying the UN. What I
> am saying is that it sounds awfully arrogant when an amateur claims to
> have the One True Answer ("this *is* how " -- notice the
> emphasis on the word "is") and then add that the professionals "haven't
> figured it out yet".
>
> He could easily have avoided coming across as arrogant, simply by
> stating that *in his opinion* "this is how the UNSC will end up",
> rather than making it look as if he knows better than all those
> professionals.
John is a lot subtler than you give him credit for.
Oh, I am familiar with the subtlety of Giorgis -- he is about as subtle as
a sledgehammer.
I didn't quite ROTFLMAO when he wrote "This is how it will turn out",
but it is a pretty good example of dry wit. BTW, dry wit depends on
the humor being subtle, so a smiley is out of place with dry wit.
Dry wit also relies heavily on body language and tone of voice. These
things are difficult (if not impossible) to convey in e-mail, that is why
emoticons were invented.
His post did not contain such an emoticon; now, other people I might have
given the benefit of the doubt, but given Giorgis's history on this list, I
had (and still do not have) any reason to see his post as anything other
than yet another display of his usual arrogance.
Jeroen "The only good Giorgis is a silent Giorgis" van Baardwijk
__
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 06:57 PM 11/3/2002 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>> What I am
>> saying is that it sounds awfully arrogant when an amateur claims to have
>> the One True Answer ("this *is* how " -- notice the emphasis on
>> the word "is") and then add that the professionals "haven't figured it out
>> yet".
>>
>> He could easily have avoided coming across as arrogant, simply by stating
>> that *in his opinion* "this is how the UNSC will end up", rather than
>> making it look as if he knows better than all those professionals.
>
>John is a lot subtler than you give him credit for. I didn't quite
>ROTFLMAO when he wrote "This is how it will turn out", but it is a pretty
>good example of dry wit. BTW, dry wit depends on the humor being subtle,
>so a smiley is out of place with dry wit.
The other problem with dry wit is that you can't exactly come out and
explain it to someone yourself once they don't get it.Oh well, I'm glad
that *somebody* got it at least... :)
JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern
them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female;
own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of
freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the
duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common
calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
-US National Security Policy, 2002
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 12:49 PM 11/8/02, John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 06:57 PM 11/3/2002 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>> What I am
>> saying is that it sounds awfully arrogant when an amateur claims to have
>> the One True Answer ("this *is* how " -- notice the emphasis on
>> the word "is") and then add that the professionals "haven't figured it out
>> yet".
>>
>> He could easily have avoided coming across as arrogant, simply by stating
>> that *in his opinion* "this is how the UNSC will end up", rather than
>> making it look as if he knows better than all those professionals.
>
>John is a lot subtler than you give him credit for. I didn't quite
>ROTFLMAO when he wrote "This is how it will turn out", but it is a pretty
>good example of dry wit. BTW, dry wit depends on the humor being subtle,
>so a smiley is out of place with dry wit.
The other problem with dry wit is that you can't exactly come out and
explain it to someone yourself once they don't get it.Oh well, I'm glad
that *somebody* got it at least... :)
As I tell my students or others when a joke fails to go over, some people
are very lucky in that they get to laugh _three times_ at a joke:
The first time -- when they hear it,
The second time -- when it's explained to them,
The third time -- when they finally get it.
-- Ronn! :~)
"Humor...it is a difficult concept."
--Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley) to Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) in _Star
Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn_
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Aside Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Ritu Ko wrote: > Ritu > GCU Still Sleepy > GSV Is 9am Too Early To Call It A Day And Go Back To Bed? No, but 10AM is a perfectly acceptable hour to begin a nap. :) Julia trying to gauge when to haul someone upstairs, plunk him into pajamas and start the just-before-bed routine -- probably should have been 15 minutes ago ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Aside Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: Aside Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record > Ritu Ko wrote: > > > Ritu > > GCU Still Sleepy > > GSV Is 9am Too Early To Call It A Day And Go Back To Bed? > > No, but 10AM is a perfectly acceptable hour to begin a nap. :) > > Julia > > trying to gauge when to haul someone upstairs, plunk him into pajamas > and start the just-before-bed routine -- probably should have been 15 > minutes ago You still do that with Dan? How sweet. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Aside Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
Julia Thompson wrote: > > Ritu > > GCU Still Sleepy > > GSV Is 9am Too Early To Call It A Day And Go Back To Bed? > > No, but 10AM is a perfectly acceptable hour to begin a nap. :) Okay. I can survive these 35 minutes just by making sure all the children, dogs and puppies are involved in a *long*, extremely captivating project. A possibility, I'm sure. :) Ritu, who favours idea of asking them to build a sand Taj in the backyard - it ought to take a few hours at least. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
NFL Realignment Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
At 02:45 PM 11/2/2002 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: >Well, there are two ways you can go with the Indianapolis vs. Baltimore >thing: > >1) Once Cleveland got a new Browns team, the Ravens were a natural >rival. So the thing to do is put Baltimore in the same division as the >Browns. > >2) Or you could go with geography; it makes a *lot* more sense under >those terms to put Indianapolis with the North, rather than the South, >and Baltimore with the South, rather than the North. > >I think that in many ways, 2) makes a lot more sense. I was practically >choking on Indianapolis being in a South division, myself, until I >analyzed the situation with who was in AFC North, and what rivalries >might want preserving. You actually missed it. Despite Maryland's reputation as being something of a "Southern State", it isn't particularly more "southerly" than Baltimore. In fact, Indianapolis is a better geogrpahic rival for Nashville than Baltimore is. The reason I projected Indianapolis to the North division, however, is that Art Modell is one of the oldest and most-respected NFL Owners, and given the pure vitriol flowing towards him in Cleveland, I figured that he would want to ahve to return to Cleveland as little as possible.I definitely did not anticipate the NFL to actually revel in the developing Cleveland-Baltimore rivalry that the whole Browns-moving debacle produced. I figured that they would actually want to bury the situation. As it is, Baltimore and Pittsburgh are natural I-70 rivals, Baltimore and Cleveland are "realignment rivals", and the deal that permitted the Browns to move to Baltimore requires that the NFL keep Cleveland in the same division as Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. So, that's how it all happened. >But, given that you predicted everything *but* that as soon as the >announcement was made, I'm impressed. Thanks. :) JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Cookies (was RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record)
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: >Jim wrote: >>hehehe, should I ever find myself sudenly diabetic or something, >>I'll drop you a line. >>Are you willing to take a trans-Atlantic flight though? :) > >Hmm, maybe not. But then again, Thanksgiving is a North American >holiday so I'm guessing you're from the States. I'm in Montreal, so >I could probably drive. Oops! Got caught in the old ass-u-me on that one. I figured a native French speaker had a good chance of being from France. In that case, New Jersey is not all that far from you after all! Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cookies (was RE: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record)
Jim Sharkey [mailto:templar569@;excite.com] wrote: >>>hehehe, should I ever find myself sudenly diabetic or something, >>>I'll drop you a line. and later: >In that case, >New Jersey is not all that far from you after all! It isn't far, but I'll turn around and hassle my own mother in law rather than hope for a diabetic Jim. Jean-Louis Madame Drapeau, avez-vous une bonne recette de biscuits aux brisures de chocolat? (translates to)Misses Drapeau, do you know a good chocolate chip cookie recipe? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More silliness, was Re: UN Security Council Reform was Re: Just for the record
At 11:21 PM 11/2/02, Erik Reuter wrote: Do you have any idea howudo you have any idea how to make a really good chocolate chip cookie? No, but I know where to go to buy them . . . M . . . chocolate chip . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
