[WikiEN-l] Re: new user

Tue Feb 15 20:36:59 UTC 2005

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> > If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly
> > murderous, you are mistaken.
> >
> > Essentially, what you're saying appears to be:  "The hammer and sickle
> > is okay because it has been sensationalized differently."  That
> > roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
> >
> > If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika.  If the
> > swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer
> > and sickle is as well.  Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or
> > to neither.  I'll respect either decision.  Just don't try to pretend
> > that one is okay and the other is not.
> 
> Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to
> it?  In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither.
> The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing.  It's what people do
> with them that makes the difference.
> 
> In the same way money is intrinsically worthless.  A dollar bill has
> value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
> 

Any chance of you'all taking this to private email? You are no longer
discussing  a wikipedia related issue.

Theresa