Chile Forum

xxx

I like the post. Don't agree with every little thing, but then I never do. Haven't time to give it the thought it deserves at the moment, but will later on this weekend. Rocks? No problemo. Bruises, welts, cuts & scrapes? They heal. Some people dislike me & wanna avoid these topics, or me, or both? No problemo. Appreciate what you wrote, would love to not defer correct response, but gotta catch a plane. Will be in Chicago, in time for lunch at Rapa nui. http://rapanuichicago.wordpress.com/. Then Kingston Mines blues joint in the pm, old school with fattening soul food. If THAT doesn't make one mellow, then one cannot be made mellow.

John Hyre

Your posts are good, puelche, in a whole different way from JHyre's analytics. I like how they force their reader to think to get anything out of them, with the semi-cryptic, allusive and flourished narrative. What did he mean? Hhhhm. Aaaaah.

I don't believe things can be reduced to "everything is relative and subjective," but you're right that we're hovering around knowledge most of the time, not nailing it. JHyre needs what you're talking about to be ready for Chile, but Chile also needs what he has to bring.

This really resonated: "Effort has no effect in this country and if you try to tell me otherwise I won't hear because the printing press the feds use for their dollars is too loud." JHyre, are you fighting a rearguard fight that you know is already lost just for honor?

Otravers,

Last sentence hit the nail on the head, we think a lot alike. Honor requires a fight, though the war is lost. Delay with the rearguard, retreat, hunker down, muster for anoher day far down the road but preferably avoid a Thermopylae. More later, airport connection is s-l-o-w.

John Hyre

There're many Spartans here, in the States and in this forum, even in Western Europe; but not enough to save what's best, what's timeless and universal, from the past. That, I think, is a major reason why so many of us look to the Far South.

hey guys dont fight:

1 zelaya probably sucks-.
2 hondurean army suck too.

1.1 zelaya was a right wing elcted president
1.2 in the middle of his period he turn to left just because chavez gave him money.

2.1 they cant fight in a international war (ridiculous size country called el salvador attacked them many times and allways won), the real protection of honudras is US army or navy (as panama and costa rica). hondurean army just exist to make coups. fact.
2.2 its true that the congress was against zelaya and they probably has some reasons to judge him. but as mr lawyer know, you have to judge someone to find him as guilty or not.

number 3 with all the respect, honduras just cant be a country. is a failed state, worst to bolivia or any in western hemisphere, real near to haiti in that term. they probably must joint with el salvador and guatemala to be a real country and not a circus anymore. is not just the size (littler than many chilean regions) its about "casta dirigente",

ps: with all the respect in the world. i just have fun reading american people talking about politic. dont get me wrong, but life is not black or white. not all left is commie, not all non-american friends (as some latin americans) are the devil. you americans are great people to find the simple way to everywhere, but politic is just the opposite. sometimes i think that is a language issue, english is direct, spanish has 100 ways to say the same but in different grades, chinese are great at maths just because theire language use the other hemisphere of the brain.

excuse me for my sad english.

xxx

P,

Nor should they fool you. We are not done here....but clients who pay the bills have come calling, so for today I am a mercenary, fighting for cash. Fighting for fun will have to wait for later.

Real State,

Guanacos kick a$$ - and I do not mean the Chilean version! Of course Salvadoran's stomped Honduras! Of course, being 1/2 Salvadoran (explains the aggression), I might be a teensy bit biased.

John Hyre, Back to Mines

Real State wrote:. . . . ps: with all the respect in the world. i just have fun reading american people talking about politic. dont get me wrong, but life is not black or white. not all left is commie, not all non-american friends (as some latin americans) are the devil. you americans are great people to find the simple way to everywhere, but politic is just the opposite. sometimes i think that is a language issue, english is direct, spanish has 100 ways to say the same but in different grades, chinese are great at maths just because theire language use the other hemisphere of the brain. . . .

I can't disagree with much that you've written about the Honduran fracas, RS; but this observation about the English language is dead wrong. Americans do tend to be direct and absolutist in their analyses. That is not the fault of the language, however (English vocabulary contains well over a million words, twice that of the next largest -- Chinese -- and roughly four times the size of the Spanish; English has more verb tenses than Spanish, and its grammar is more supple and varied than any other major modern language; etc.), but rather a part of the national character (I could go on about the historical and educational roots but shan't bore you). If you wish proof, just spend an evening with the finer writers in the English language -- Milton and Shakespeare, of course, but also myriad other poets, novelists, playwrights -- and try to discern the many depths of meaning.

Real State wrote:ps: with all the respect in the world. i just have fun reading american people talking about politic. dont get me wrong, but life is not black or white. not all left is commie, not all non-american friends (as some latin americans) are the devil. you americans are great people to find the simple way to everywhere, but politic is just the opposite. sometimes i think that is a language issue, english is direct, spanish has 100 ways to say the same but in different grades, chinese are great at maths just because theire language use the other hemisphere of the brain.

excuse me for my sad english.

Real State, I love your words and always forgive your English. Postings from those in Chile, or that have lived in Chile are especially welcome to me.

RWS-The million words in the English language jajaja. The millionth English word is "Web 2.0".

The "Million Word March," however, has made the man who runs this word-counting project somewhat of a pariah in the linguistic community. Some linguists say it's impossible to count the number of words in a language because languages are always changing, and because defining what counts as a word is a fruitless endeavor...

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/10/million.words/

And shouldn't Castellano words be counted as Spanish then-even if they're only used here?

El P-I love your postings and readings that make us stop and think. They should have a warning for the JHyres of the world "Read Slowly and Proceed with Caution". Not because I thought you were liberal, reading over time, I could see you're not. But that doesn't matter because you have some stories and experiences that appeal to all of us. And I enjoyed his anti-P tirade when he assumed(we know what happens when you assume) that you were a liberal. Then he reads "I am a Conservative" followed by his "soft kisses". Hehehe

Laura55llc wrote:. . . . And shouldn't Castellano words be counted as Spanish then-even if they're only used here? . . . .

But of course! (I'm certain that you must know the origin of the appellation of castellano in relation to the dialect.) And we'll consider not only Midlands and Wessex and a dozen others there, but Nigerian English, and Canadian English, and all the many, many more.

Seriously, counting words is even more difficult than counting people, and just as changeable. I use the best estimates of reliable groups -- I don't do it myself!

I've a bit of time to write, thought I'd take a stab at it.

Puelche notes that there is much yelling going on in here and it makes it hard to concentrate. I would say that is the nature of multi-party, online argument. Unfortunately, sloppy thinking and deliberate attempts to cloud/avoid issues make it so loud as to make rational discussion increasingly futile. For example:

Laura posts that silly old John just jumped right on in and assumed Puelche to be a liberal. Implicitly, it is to say that is what we can expect from knuckle-dragging caricatures of conservative “haters” like John. Obviously we cannot take such people seriously. People, pay attention: For large segments of the population, this what passes for "argument". First, the arguments are the arguments, regardless of who states them. To imply that “x is a poopy-head and we need not listen to a poopy-head’s arguments” is not an argument or a counter-argument. It is an evasion of an argument. What does it say about someone’s confidence in her own position if, instead of countering with it, that someone must employ cheap tactics to influence the view of the facts & arguments set forth?

Second, the beauty of the written word is that we can check what people actually said. Go back and read my posts to Puelche. NOWHERE do I assert explicitly or implicitly that Puelche is a liberal. NOWHERE. It's like the "Right to Abortion" in the US Constitution - much as you might wish it were so, it is simply not in there. My ASSumption exists in one place only: Laura's mind. Don't take my word for it, read the posts. Laura, when you throw mud at somebody, it either sticks to them or it sticks to you. Once again, you are the one left wearing the wet-dirt pie, delivered by your own hand. You are consistent, I’ll grant you that. If you ever wonder why you are getting “hateful” responses from me, look no further than your own actions.

As to Puelche’s Friday 12:25am post: I am also having fun. I prefer to present facts and arguments and see some come back at me, which I oddly view as “fun”. But I can also have fun trading nasty words, though I do not view that as a substitute for argument, or as being very productive. So, part of the fun is that when someone sticks me (I described your deft contribution in no small detail), I stick them back, hard. I find it sad that so-called “argument” degenerates into name calling.

Your style is pretty and more subtle than mine, as your Wednesday 11:01 post demonstrates. My style is head-on with a hammer. Hit me, and I will look you in the face and call you an SOB, making me openly “insensitive”. I also show you and others the courtesy (not to mention intellectual honesty) to address points head-on, one at a time, instead evading them. For all of your ability to craft imagery, this is not something you have done in this chain. Any honest reading of the dialogue so far will note that I have taken effort to address points presented – and that almost all of the arguments against what I’m saying simply ignore what I am saying.

Back to the more recent post, once again, you give us your position, which is fine, I get it. You view events in Honduras as fairly insignificant (I addressed that directly), with the law being dismissed as basically ireelevant (I addressed that directly), and think we cannot know what is really happening (I addressed that directly). At this stage, I have a hard time believing anyone could not see my position: The government followed the law in an orderly and legal change of power, probably also preventing a Chavez-like takeover. That is a good thing and I think Obama et al are grossly mistaken in what Charles quickly pointed out was a knee-jerk reaction. That’s it, no more, no less. Did I assert that Honduras would become a paradise tomorrow, that the law there is perfect or that the ruling class hasn’t its wiles for getting its way? No, no and no.

I like to ARGUE, in the classic sense of the word. I am generally informed about the “other side” and become more so by arguing with the other side. Sometimes they present facts or arguments that I did not think of, and I modify my position….definitely not the case so far (though I still have to address Cali post & factual portion of Laura’s post). Given that I take the time to know what I am talking about and keep an open mind towards the facts (carefully read my posts, you will see it), it is hard to come up with a surprise for me (oh, I’ll bet that’s an “arrogant” thing to say) – but it does happen, and part of the reason I am hard to trip up is that I DO explore other ways of looking at things, partly by arguing with others. Let me switch sides with the "other side". Then let’s see who is truly more open minded as evidenced by understanding and expressing how the “other side” look at things.

My “attitude” is like arsenic – cumulative. Certain people have a tendency to substitute personal attack for argument. Unlike the foppish “Marquis of Queensbury” Republicans, I will hit back hard if I pick up a pattern. I will not apologize for it. That will make me disliked or ignored by some. The opinions of such people are of little merit. I do understand that in the heat of the discussion, some people (me included) can get carried away, so the all-healing beer is generally a good way to “make nice” with those people. The others? Who cares. Life is short and there are SOOOOO many neat people to spend time with, I’ll not shed a solitary tear over the lost affection of the remainder.

“You are (you will love this) the reason that Obama got elected. Republicans and conservatives are not organic enough and you are the perfect example. You strut, poke and point out the legalities of this and that and no one cares. They can't care because the effort has long had its bottom ripped out. Effort has no effect in this country and if you try to tell me otherwise I won't hear because the printing press the feds use for their dollars is to loud.”

I unfortunately agree, with one exception: Me and my ilk did not cause Obama's victory. Indirectly, that victory came from "the bottom getting ripped out" – that is a general societal malaise endemic of declining republics. While actual arguments of legal “niceties” may be viewed as strutting about (much less important than “what can you do for me today", regardless of silly things like laws), Obama’s election is a result of an economic crash, non-conservative Republican spending like crazy, the hatred of those who set the cultural tone (press, universities & Hollywood), and an unpopular (and in my view, necessary) war. Strutting like mine being responsible for Obama’s election? I wish – that’d mean that people are actually paying attention to such things! Alas, we have American Idol & brief soundbites by a corrupt press to guide our populace – that, and "what can you do for me today". Ignorance + greed (YOU should pay for MY healthcare!) = Obama.

Change? Wait a second, I thought you said you were a CONSERVative. That is a discussion for another day. Enjoy the red marks given and received.

John Hyre, Back to Mercenary Work