Re: [OT:] Re: War on humanity

From: Terry Given (the_domes_at_xtra.co.nz)
Date: 06/02/04 

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:04:57 +1200

"Andrew VK3BFA" <ablight@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:1fc7b362.0406020051.7c2358fc@posting.google.com...
> Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<c9j7m401v3p@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > Tim Auton wrote...
> > >
> > > You're all talking about the last war. The current "enemy" cannot be
> > > defeated by guns and bombs. It respects no borders. The enemy is not
> > > readily identifiable. You can't kill them all. In attempting to do
> > > so with current methods you create more.
> > >
> > > The people have the communications and powerful tools once the
> > > preserve of the elite. The rules haven't changed much, but there
> > > are now 6 billion players, so the game has changed a whole lot.
> > > We'll learn, I just hope most of us don't die in the process.
> >
> > We have met the enemy and they are us?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Win
> >
> > (email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)
>
> So perhaps if we ALL stop arguing dogma and "My dog can beat your dog"
> stuff, and actually recognise that no one is going to "win" anything
> except a Phyrric victory, then maybe we can all sit down and try to
> understand and maybe address some of the wrongs of each side? - calls
> for a quantum shift in thinking, but how many more people need to die
> before we get to this stage
>
> ANdrew VK3BFA

Alas Andrew empirical evidence clearly suggests MORE is the answer to your
question.

to paraphrase: dont focus on the problem, focus on the solution. Not likely
to happen though - neither side appears even remotely willing to concede
that some of the other sides arguments have merit.

Cheers
Terry