Is Current Events dead?

[RocDoc]

Re maarts' suggestion for the International Events board...every time I've brought up something regarding those areas of the most interest to me...ie, the former SSRs and how Russia's a corrupt conniving two-faced entity, trying to trade on its past glories...it gets ignored or it's seen as too far afield...or as some un-named person told me, 'Oh Doc, the USSR is so 80s!'

There's a great blog run by an Ukrainian-Australian woman out of Washington DC which I log onto occasionally,

aussiethule.blogspot.com/

which I'd recommend to anybody with the least bit interest in what Eastern European-connected people (and the remnants of post WWII diaspora, like me) have gone through and how they HAVE to have a slightly altered view of our politics here and it's relationships to what's gone on in our countries and what continues...Aussiegirl is very cool.

Sort of an Eastern European Chrisfan, the way I read her.

[maarts]

I read a lot of posts, including your dissertations too, Doc, but I don't acknowledge all the time that I've read them- I'd have racked up 7000 posts by now then.

But I don't expect everyone to be riveted by everything I post here. Conversely, I know that some Australian subject matter would only be fitting on the Aussie-boards because no one here would be interested from the get go- if you were, you'd be regulars at Kat's for sure. And that's all fair enough.

Kenny- you'll find that you discuss US politics a heap more than you think.

[maarts]

And thanks for the link Doc- looks quite interesting!

[kmc]

So sad for the people who lost their lives during that damned earthquake.

[strat-0]

Quite so. Now, there's a current event.

[maarts]

Agree. It's been a horrid month- was watching the floods in Nicaragua on TV earlier, all caused by Hurricane Stan who has destroyed so much in Mexico too, now this...
Someone up there doesn't like us.

I heard Nick Park, the director of Chicken Run and Wallace & Gromit this morning- his Aardman-studios went up in flames and destroyed many clay models and props from the films yesterday, play down the fire's impact given that Pakistan and India had lost thousands of people in that earthquake: "Even though it is a precious and nostalgic collection and valuable to the company, in light of other tragedies, today isn't a big deal".
Puts indeed a whole different perspective on things indeed.

Is this now the CE Dead slash earthquake-board

[wayved]

You know what? As long as the news is televised or on paper, there will always be things to be angry about.

[chrisfan]

kmc said:

Thing is, I am not much up for rules. But the way I see it, there is a basic disconnect between the people who regularly post here that goes way beyond ideological differences: It's why I
always see RocDoc as freaking out, and he always sees me as some kind of juvenile academic snob (which I very well might be). It's why Chrisfan always comes across as condescending to those who oppose her.

To be completely and totally honest Ken, here's the problem with CE in a nutshell. For as long as you or anyone else insists on reading into posts what is not there, they will appear to be offensive to you. There are people who are mature enough to rise above the preconcieved notions of everyone around here, and they tend to be the people who have the most to offer.

Politics, and political debates, are an exchange of ideas. There is nothing really personal about it. It's when people make it personal, or insist that it is in fact personal, that it gets mind numbing.

[shin]

Yeah? We'll you're a poopy pants!

[kmc]

I disagree, Chrisfan. It isn't merely a matter of reading offensiveness when no offense is meant; it's a matter of offensiveness meant and disavowed upon protest on both sides of the aisle. It's important to realize that it's not just a matter of people needing to rise above the invective nature of certain posts.

I would propose that people go through greater pains to make sure that their posts are not taken as offensive, particularly when you consider the already flammable nature of the subject matter.

[chrisfan]

Ken, I can only speak for myself. I know there have been many times when I've been accused of having a tone that was not intended in the slightest. It's not a matter of me denying what I've done just because I'm accused of it ... it's a matter of me denying what I've been accused of because I HONESTLY did not intend it to be that way. Now obviously there is no way for me to prove that, but I can't think of any reason why anyone around here has reason to believe I'm a liar. So, if the solution is for me to not do what I'm already not doing, then how exactly do I fix it when I already have?

[kmc]

If you don't think you are sometimes condescending, Chrisfan, then that's all good, and keep up the good work.

In my opinion, these message boards are kinda like when you receive a joke through email and (predictably) don't laugh. It's hard to gauge tone through informal message board format.

[chrisfan]

I agree with that completely. I guess that is precisely the reason why I don't get how some people can be so confident that they know the intended tone better than the author does.

[Galactus]

I know a guy and everyone thinks he's an asshole only he says he's not an asshole, so I guess he's right.

If it's just one maybe even two people I can buy that but when the list is long and spread out over years there's probably some truth in it, isn't there?

[kmc]

Certain words and certain phrasing can lead people to certain conclusions (jeez. How many times can I say certain?). I am not saying you are knowingly condescending, Chrisfan, but I know you have often been accused as being so.

We can all do better here, if we indeed want to propagate some sort of genial decorum in this place.