>Okay, let's take this in chunks. Not okay:
>>Why not answer the rest of the question Gary? It went like this: snippetysnippetysnip... Snipping's supposed to remove previous irrelevant matter to save space. But you're a compulsive snipper, and not to save space. Then the "chunks" you're left with aren't quite the same thing, eh? You can just take a little nibble or two in order to spit it out again and leave all the rest snipped by the wayside. It just evades the issue, and among other things somehow leads you to conclude that you're knocking one of my heroes, for heavens sakes. Do you think King Asoka's my hero too? We're not talking about hero-worship. Why don't you try giving a proper response? I'm not going to stitch it all back again, do it yourself. Who said anything about saints? Only you. Who's trying to avoid politics other than you? And who are you trying to tell about media coverage? If you'd been paying a little more attention you might have learnt a little about just what media coverage means and doesn't mean and the role it plays and doesn't play in issues such as these. Not necessarily what you just naturally assume. You have to skip over (snip snip) large chunks (not just niblets) of recent and current history for your view of it to make any sense. It's just prejudice anyway (pre-judgment). Force reality into it if you wish, but you're not persuading anyone but yourself that it fits. Peaceful protest doesn't work, what a load of old bullshit, same with peace with justice doesn't exist. You're talking nonsense. >Gandhi I've only got a passing familiarity with, even though he >seems to be referred to as the father of non-violent protest. >Maybe he was perfect and maybe his followers were never incited to >riot or to violence. If so, then in this case I'm wrong. I hope >I'm wrong. I'd like to be wrong. I wish my cynical world view was >wrong and that if you really are pure of heart then the truth will >win out in the end and peace will fall on the land but I guess I >just haven't seen it in my life time. There's a difference between cynicism and that last little burst of sarcasm, and cynicism isn't usually so ill-informed either. Maybe you didn't see it because you didn't look or looked the other way? Go and study Gandhi then, you're not qualified to discuss this issue if you know nothing about Gandhi, let alone declaim on it. You share a country with a lot of Indians among others and you don't know from Gandhi? Or from the history of the last 40 years it seems, other than via a keyhole. If you found just one instance of riot or violence being associated with Gandhian protest you'd look no further, that'd be your proof, case rests. Poof, you snap your fingers, and the role of peaceful protest and passive resistance in creating change vanishes, and so today, at this of all crucial junctures in human affairs, you'd leave us with no other tools than a hammer to face a juggernaut. I think you don't really know anything about this. Probably that's what other people said about King at the time and you've thought so ever since. Also please don't just brush things aside. Eg: >>Peace with justice, D. Mindock > >Did that ever really exist? You were given some examples, snipping it isn't exactly an acceptable response. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner >Okay, let's take this in chunks. > >Yes, there is peaceful protest but how effective is it really? It's >not. It doesn't get much media coverage and gets ignored or >forgotten if it is reported. > >People Power in the PI? Again the threat of violence was there, >there were isolated incidents if I remember correctly. > >Where MLK went there were often riots, big or small.... okay, small >riot is an oxymoron but you get the idea. MLK spoke constantly of >non-violence but there were the agitators in the back that kept >things on edge. Did MLK secretly coordinate with them? Who knows. >All I'm saying here is without the iron fist inside the silk glove >you won't be taken seriously. > >Sorry if it appears I'm stomping on one of your heros but I see very >few people as saints be they good or bad. Politics are everywhere >no matter what your agenda be it for good or bad. Someone once said >that if you were not into politics, you will be done in by politics. > > >On 14 Apr 2006, at 10:20, Keith Addison wrote: > >>>Whenever MLK came to town you knew you either gave him what he >>> >>>wanted or you would have violence on your hands. >>> >>> >>>The man was not a saint but he was very good at what he did. That's >>> >>>why he had to be killed. >>> >> >>And so that proves your point, there's no such thing as peaceful >> >>protest, it's just a sham? >> >> >>Why not answer the rest of the question Gary? It went like this: _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
