Bangkok No Fun any more

� wrote:


Well I agree with most of the things Tchiowa says and I tend to agree
with his side of things. That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take. I tend to be on the side of those who recognise this
and know that sometimes rules have to bent a little and allowances given
to get things done. Does that mean we are savages or morally bankrupt? A
nicer name would be 'realists'. Similarly people label you an elitist
pig or an idealist. I'm sure you prefer to call yourself an upright man.

Still the point I want to make is there are all kinds of people in this
world. We should all try and do the decent thing and use the 'nicer' way
of describing people who disagree with us.


Dave is not really wrong, he wanted to be an angel.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:19:49 +0800, alex® wrote:

That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take.

I can't agree with that. I especially can't agree with it when the path taken
has no tangible benefits, and lots of associated problems.

Dave

"alex®" kirjoitti
...


Well I agree with most of the things Tchiowa says and I tend to agree with
his side of things. That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of

I pity you.

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:19:49 +0800, alex® wrote:


That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take.


I can't agree with that.

yeah, well... kindergarden teachers never do... when all you are
responsible for is a group of 4 or 5 years old, your simplistic
bush-like moralizing about the real world might *seem* to work...they
can't see the inherent contradictions in your little sermons, bless
their little minds...


michael

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:19:53 GMT, michael wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:19:49 +0800, alex® wrote:


That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take.


I can't agree with that.

yeah, well...

yawn.

Dave

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:19:53 GMT, michael wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:19:49 +0800, alex® wrote:


That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take.


I can't agree with that.

yeah, well... kindergarden teachers never do... when all you are
responsible for is a group of 4 or 5 years old, your simplistic
bush-like moralizing about the real world might *seem* to work...
[snip]

Bush functions on brute force and corruption, like Thaksin. You are
barking up the wrong tree, dog.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:27:34 GMT, Pan wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:19:53 GMT, michael wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:19:49 +0800, alex® wrote:


That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take.


I can't agree with that.

yeah, well... kindergarden teachers never do... when all you are
responsible for is a group of 4 or 5 years old, your simplistic
bush-like moralizing about the real world might *seem* to work...
[snip]

Bush functions on brute force and corruption, like Thaksin. You are
barking up the wrong tree, dog.

He's obviously new to the newsgroup - if he'd bother to read back a bit he
would see that I rank Bush as highly as I do Thaksin - i.e. at the bottom of
the barrel.

Dave

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:13:30 +0800, Dave Baker
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:27:34 GMT, Pan wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:19:53 GMT, michael wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:19:49 +0800, alex® wrote:


That is not to say that you are wrong. Most of
the things you say are right and the morally right path. However there
are many situations in the world where the morally right path is not the
best path to take.


I can't agree with that.

yeah, well... kindergarden teachers never do... when all you are
responsible for is a group of 4 or 5 years old, your simplistic
bush-like moralizing about the real world might *seem* to work...
[snip]

Bush functions on brute force and corruption, like Thaksin. You are
barking up the wrong tree, dog.

He's obviously new to the newsgroup - if he'd bother to read back a bit he
would see that I rank Bush as highly as I do Thaksin - i.e. at the bottom of
the barrel.

You and me both, Dave.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

Pan wrote:

Bush functions on brute force and corruption, like Thaksin. You are
barking up the wrong tree, dog.

bush is contemptuous of due process, democratic structures *and* the
demos; he also "reasons" through childlike, black-and-white "moralisms"
with little relation to the real world...

so-called idealists like kindergarden-boy here usually don't show their
true faces until they actually get some power... hitler was idealistic
when all he could do was talk...


michael

Dave Baker wrote:

He's obviously new to the newsgroup - if he'd bother to read back a bit he
would see that I rank Bush as highly as I do Thaksin - i.e. at the bottom of
the barrel.

and if you had half a brain, you'd realize that your "ranking" of anyone
in particular would alter my sense of your ill thought out,
self-contradictory "morality" not one whit...


michael