[WikiEN-l] Re: new user

Tue Feb 15 20:53:19 UTC 2005

Theresa Knott wrote:
> 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.
> 

Actually, I think we just reached an at least two-person consensus on 
the principle behind a wikipedia-related issue.  In any case, I have no 
problems taking it off-list if any more discussion is needed, and I'll 
shut up now (barring further wikipedia-related discussion to which I 
wish to respond).

--
Chad