Have you gone tralala or something, Traveller ?

Since I started to wrute my last post warnining not to get involved in the forbidden subject of politics, you have added a link to an article (or something - I haven't read) with the very big title "P O L I T I C S"/

Are you deliberately trying to get this thread stopped or banned ? And if so - why ?

Okay, boys and girls, let's play nice now.

Also, I suggest that any member having a problem with another member take the dispute into Private Messaging or email. JA's forums are not for airing interpersonal grievances. Thank you.

@ Len: *Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Richard Branson, Warren Buffet *

Heh, and you are saying their methods are squeaky clean?  Just the first person alone that you mentioned there is an absolute shark who enforced a monopoly to his own advantage, and still continues to squeeze every penny that he possibly can out of the public at large.

This isn't politics, it's plain common knowledge.  The fact that such people make use of all kinds of unsavory tactics has nothing to do with politics, perhaps closer to religion...since their religion is kill the opposition and squeeze the man on the street until he is blue!

oh this is most certainly politics, because those people can be called heroes or villians, depending on your political and economical points of view

That's why i won't answer in this thread, the only thing i'll say is that I absolutely don't agree with you Trav 

I already figured out before that we're not on the same political side 

It is EXTREMELY well known that POLITICS (and religion) is banned here.

The ONLY thing that needs doing is to inform &/or reprimand the person who infringes the JA Forum's rules !

Originally Posted By Traveller (21 APR 2012 3:50pm)

@ Len: *Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Richard Branson, Warren Buffet *

 

Heh, and you are saying their methods are squeaky clean?  Just the first person alone that you mentioned there is an absolute shark who enforced a monopoly to his own advantage, and still continues to squeeze every penny that he possibly can out of the public at large.

 

This isn't politics, it's plain common knowledge.  The fact that such people make use of all kinds of unsavory tactics has nothing to do with politics, perhaps closer to religion...since their religion is kill the opposition and squeeze the man on the street until he is blue!

I am VERY far from being a lover of Bill Gates.

But that is entirely off the poimt

I know nothing of the business practices of any of the other tycoons I listed nor the other hundreds of thousands of billionaires, multi millionaires, millionaires, vry wealthy people, etc.

But whether all these people in their own diverse ways, for better &/or for worse, are "good" for the world, society, progress, etc. and what (if anything) to do about it - is most definitely a matter of politics.

Are you trying to imply that American-type Capitalism versus the late USSR's-type Comunisn is not a matter ob both International and Nnational politics ?

Once you start to praise or revile one or the other, or the spectrum of many intermediate systems, you are entering the world of POLITICS !!

. 

I think it's fair to say that any broad generalization about ANY socio-economic class of people tends to be a gross over-simplification. 

That said, I don't think Traveller was trying to condemn all self-made, wealthy people as corrupt any more than Len was condemning all people who inherit great wealth and/or position.  

Some of each group are very corrupt / greedy / self-centered and some are very honest / compassionate / charitable. 

I've known several prime examples of each type and many more who fall somewhere in between - like most of us do. 

Cheers, Terry 

Originally Posted By Terry Penrod (21 APR 2012 5:39pm)

. 

 

I think it's fair to say that any broad generalization about ANY socio-economic class of people tends to be a gross over-simplification. 

 

That said, I don't think Traveller was trying to condemn all self-made, wealthy people as corrupt any more than Len was condemning all people who inherit great wealth and/or position.  

 

Some of each group are very corrupt / greedy / self-centered and some are very honest / compassionate / charitable. 

 

I've known several prime examples of each type and many more who fall somewhere in between - like most of us do. 

 

Cheers, Terry 

I'm sorry Terry - but that's not the point !

It is impossible to answer an accusation of "GROSS oversimplification or any other antagonistic charge when the person insists on using political themes which are banned and hence cannot be rebutted !

Originally Posted By Len Green (21 APR 2012 6:18pm)

Originally Posted By Terry Penrod (21 APR 2012 5:39pm)

. 

 

I think it's fair to say that any broad generalization about ANY socio-economic class of people tends to be a gross over-simplification. 

 

That said, I don't think Traveller was trying to condemn all self-made, wealthy people as corrupt any more than Len was condemning all people who inherit great wealth and/or position.  

 

Some of each group are very corrupt / greedy / self-centered and some are very honest / compassionate / charitable. 

 

I've known several prime examples of each type and many more who fall somewhere in between - like most of us do. 

 

Cheers, Terry 

I'm sorry Terry - but that's not the point !

 

It is impossible to answer an accusation of "GROSS oversimplification or any other antagonistic charge when the person insists on using political themes which are banned and hence cannot be rebutted !

 

Len, I honestly don't think a general discussion about the personal ethics of wealthy private citizens - regardless of how, when or where they became rich - has to involve politics.

As long as nobody specifically ties their motives / methods to a political party or agenda, then why can't we openly talk about and even argue heatedly about this topic? 

There are lots of reasons why people aspire to great wealth and power other than political / religious beliefs. 

Of course it is not my call, but I have not seen any violation of the forum rules in this thread and would actually like to hear what the administrators have to say before assuming that every disagreement between we members will automatically be considered a banned political / religious discussion. 

Cheers, Terry 

Originally Posted By markornikov (21 APR 2012 3:58pm)

oh this is most certainly politics, because those people can be called heroes or villians, depending on your political and economical points of view

 

That's why i won't answer in this thread, the only thing i'll say is that I absolutely don't agree with you Trav 

I already figured out before that we're not on the same political side 

LOL, if you're thereby implying that I don't - purely form an academic Economics viewpoint, you understand - (and since Economic theory used to be one of my college subjects, this is said from a purely academic viewpoint, not a political one) support a capatalist system and that I support a certain economic system that was tried and failed in certain countries in the world, I don't! 

 In fact I used to be quite the opposite, however, until I personally met such a 'self-made man', and seen how such people work, I've been careful to observe how "rich, self-made" men tend to operate.   ..and to think they became billionaires simply by hard work alone, tends to be an oversimplification, yes.

Anyway, I only mentioned that article as an EXAMPLE.

...and my personal distaste for Bill Gates is well-known, but that is a personal thing and has nothing at all to do with politics.  Yes, there have indeed been charitable billionaires, but as far as I'm concerned, Bill Gates isn't one of them, because the charity Bill Gates shows, is merely for show and to appease any part of conscience that he might have, though I suspect he has none.  He is constantly sitting at #1 on the richest man in the world list; - have you any idea how wealthy that is?  ..and yet the business paractices of MS remain unabatedly, shamelessly pointed at making the biggest buck it possibly can.

In any case, I stick with my assertion in saying that :>>> "There will always be rich people and poor people, nothing ever changes", (and trying to blame the relative lack of wealth of some classes on them partaking in drugs) <<<  is a gross oversimplification of the complexities of ecomomics, sociology, history and of political realities.

I was not the one who started making statements like these, I was merely reacting to this statement.

People who make statements like those, should perhaps evaluate the political potential of such statements before they make them.

Btw, just a seperate little note regarding debate on forums: if you're going to start a forum, but you're expecting every single person to agree on it, be it regarding games, films, books, religion, politics, whatever, you shouldn't waste your time having an internet forum, and should rather stick your time into some solitary pursuit, because wherever people come together, there is going to be disagreement.

If you completely ban any disagreement, you might as well shut that forum down, because you are basically thereby prohibiting people from expressing their opinions, since people's opinions differ, and if they are not allowed to express these differences, then why bother having a forum at all where people can discourse on whatever subjects might be "allowed" or not.

I would suggest that, rather than prohibiting diagreement per se, one should look at how maturely and politely the participants manage to convey specific disagreement.  When personal attacks making use of personal insults take place, perhaps that is the aspect that should require the moderator's attention, not the fact that there is a disagreement per se.

I certainly hope that I didn't personally insult anyone, heavens, I even refrained from calling Bill Gates a "greedy git" or any such nasty personal insults using perjoratives.  If I had showered perjoratives upon him, then I would agree that I have broken the general forums rules of good conduct.  So I'm not calling Bill Gates that, and neither am I using perjoratives or insults against anybody else.

I hope other participants in this forum will apply similar self-restraint, and at least try to conform to a certain baseline standard of polite conduct.

/me runs for nearest exit while screaming, "It's alive! It's alive!!"  

Originally Posted By Traveller (22 APR 2012 1:30am)

 

 

LOL, if you're thereby implying that I don't - purely form an academic Economics viewpoint, you understand - (and since Economic theory used to be one of my college subjects, this is said from a purely academic viewpoint, not a political one) support a capatalist system and that I support a certain economic system that was tried and failed in certain countries in the world, I don't! 

I didn't assume you would be that extreme,  living in the US would be hell on earth in that case, wouldn't it

But i'm still picturing the tree-hugging hippie girl in my mind when i read your posts , your avatar isn't helping either 

Originally Posted By markornikov (22 APR 2012 3:22am)

Originally Posted By Traveller (22 APR 2012 1:30am)

 

 

LOL, if you're thereby implying that I don't - purely form an academic Economics viewpoint, you understand - (and since Economic theory used to be one of my college subjects, this is said from a purely academic viewpoint, not a political one) support a capatalist system and that I support a certain economic system that was tried and failed in certain countries in the world, I don't! 

 

I didn't assume you would be that extreme,  living in the US would be hell on earth in that case, wouldn't it

But i'm still picturing the tree-hugging hippie girl in my mind when i read your posts , your avatar isn't helping either 

 

Hmm, I'm not liberal in all aspects (well, not competely frothing at the mouth so), and you'd be surprised at how conservative I actually am in some aspects,  but you are correct in that I am certainly a greenie tree-hugger.

In fact, I prefer moderation in most things. 

Re conservation and the ecology, I'm pretty green.  Though once again not as extreme as some ppl who suggest we should give up our PC's, microwaves and cars and go back to riding horses and telling stories around camp fires while we cook our food on it.

In fact, if we were actually allowed to discussed politics on here, you would know that I don't actually support either side in the US divide.   :-X  ..but we are certainly not allowed to discuss that, so I shan't say a word on it.  Mouth zipped.

This thread was started by inviting discussion about a piece of costume drama set in a time when those in society who enjoyed priviledge and wealth also exclusively wielded all political power.  I fail to see how any ensuing discussion of this show's contents could avoid making comments about or comparisons with the priviledges still enjoyed by the rich in today's society.  Unless of course, conversation is strictly limited to discussions on the costumes' authenticity, the aesthetics of the period interiors, the quality of dialogue and the choice of actors.  No one, not even the thread starter, has chosen to discuss the actual TV show instead of the politicial structure behind the storyline.  In fact, this show isn't about Britain's royalty yet they feature in the thread title - why?

But then, when no one replied quickly enough, Len took his thread into the surf with the following: 

The following is NOT political !!

Some extoll her others loathe her - this is most probably influenced by what political party people belong to.  But love her or hate her I don't think that anybody can deny that Margaret Thatcher is one of the most brilliant women of the 20th century. [...]

 

No getting away from the fact.  Whatever else you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, you have to thoroughly admire her guts and tenacity.

This statment, despite being about a famous political leader, and offering a clear personal opinion which everyone is expected to agree with does not in Len's mind breach the forum guidelines simply because he said it wasn't political.

So does that mean that if Len declares another member's post to be political that it therefore is - regardless of who it's about?  Or does it mean that Trav and everyone else should simply preface their comments about anyone and anything with the magic words: This isn't political.   And perhaps someone will be brave or rude enough to suggest to Len that perhaps he has gone tra la la and we'll see how quickly he starts screaming he's been offended or insulted and looking up the relevant section in the forum rule book. 

From what I can see the only bits of this thread that are not political deal with Len's family's achievements  - you should all know what they are by now, he mentions them in every thread, relevant or not. 

Well, now you mention it, Caroline, if the opening post as quoted below, is not more political than any of the comments I have made in this thread so far, then I must have gone 'tralala' indeed.

I have highlighted some of the supposedly "not political" statements in it:

Originally Posted By Len Green (8 FEB 2012 1:24pm)

Seems there is  a certain resurgence in interest in class distinction - if I say snobbery, I could get reprimanded !

 

I am watching the second series of 8 Downton Abbey episodes with very mixed feelings. 

 

Anybody else got any special feelings or opinions?

 

At the same time we have been getting a spate of films about the British Royal Family.  We had Elizabeth  II,  George VI and his stutter, and now Madonna is once more reviving the melodrama of Edward who relinquished his throne for the woman he loved.  One wonders what might have happened had he no abdicated since he and Mrs. Simpson were pot pals with the Nazi ambassador to Great Britain von Ribbentrop and were delighted to hobnob with Adolf Hitler and his gang.

Before that however, there was a beautiful film about the son of King George V who was hidden away for life because he had epilepsy - a charming rather simple youngster.

Originally Posted By Traveller (22 APR 2012 1:30am)

Originally Posted By markornikov (21 APR 2012 3:58pm)

oh this is most certainly politics, because those people can be called heroes or villians, depending on your political and economical points of view

 

That's why i won't answer in this thread, the only thing i'll say is that I absolutely don't agree with you Trav 

I already figured out before that we're not on the same political side 

 

LOL, if you're thereby implying that I don't - purely form an academic Economics viewpoint, you understand - (and since Economic theory used to be one of my college subjects, this is said from a purely academic viewpoint, not a political one) support a capatalist system and that I support a certain economic system that was tried and failed in certain countries in the world, I don't! 

 

 In fact I used to be quite the opposite, however, until I personally met such a 'self-made man', and seen how such people work, I've been careful to observe how "rich, self-made" men tend to operate.   ..and to think they became billionaires simply by hard work alone, tends to be an oversimplification, yes.

 

Anyway, I only mentioned that article as an EXAMPLE.

 

...and my personal distaste for Bill Gates is well-known, but that is a personal thing and has nothing at all to do with politics.  Yes, there have indeed been charitable billionaires, but as far as I'm concerned, Bill Gates isn't one of them, because the charity Bill Gates shows, is merely for show and to appease any part of conscience that he might have, though I suspect he has none.  He is constantly sitting at #1 on the richest man in the world list; - have you any idea how wealthy that is?  ..and yet the business paractices of MS remain unabatedly, shamelessly pointed at making the biggest buck it possibly can.

 

In any case, I stick with my assertion in saying that :>>> "There will always be rich people and poor people, nothing ever changes", (and trying to blame the relative lack of wealth of some classes on them partaking in drugs) <<

 

I was not the one who started making statements like these, I was merely reacting to this statement.

 

People who make statements like those, should perhaps evaluate the political potential of such statements before they make them.

Hey you've given me an idea Traveller !

Maybe I can discuss here agnosticism versus atheism just from an ACADEMIC point of view of course.  I studied some theology when I was a college exactly 70 years ago (when I was not studying pPhysics & maths = and Marx & Engels & the Communist Manifesto on the side)

Purely from a theological point of view you understand - not (God forbid) religious)/

Well, you've already stated that you're an atheist, we all know it, and now we all know that I'm not a communist.  If my saying that  I'm not a communist is discussing politics and religion more than stating that you are an atheist is, then go for it.

Ironically, I was actually parodying your constant protestations of  :"this isn't a political statement" in the quote you copied above.

I repeat once again - I PERSONALLY have no problem whatsoever in discussing either Politics or religion. !

It is the policy opf the Forums (good or bad) to ban these subjects.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOt politics Traveller ?!?

If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duxck !        

The link you made to the site (or whatever) with the title in large bold red typeface "POLITICS" and chock full of political material is there to examine bird watching ???????

Oi, Len - my link had direct reference to your statement!

...but then how would you know if you haven't read it?  I didn't ask you to discuss it on JA. I posted it for your personal edification regarding your blanket statement, which was in fact a political statement, which is why I preferred not to analyze it and discuss it in more detail .

To say that a group of people are wealthy simply because they worked hard for it, and that another group of people are not wealthy because they are on drugs, is a political statement; and besides that it is a political statement, it's an oversimplification, and may I add, an offensive one too.

I am not going to discuss this with you any further, because it IS politics.

I made a comment that your statement is an oversimplification, and I stand by that.  I kept my comment on your comment simple, in order to avoid a political discussion, which this will become if it is, in fact, discussed in any more detail.

Tell you what, here are some more articles on the same issue, that doesn't have the word "politics "at the top.  Does that help, Len?

http://problembanklist.com/fdic-to-cover-losses-on-trillion-bank-of-america-derivative-bets-0419/

and

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/01/20/bank-of-america-how-to-lose-20-billion-of-value-in-2-trading-days/

.

Regarding Trav's original statement, I still fail to see how disliking a well-known private citizen like Bill Gates for ethical reasons is "political". 

Neither is expressing general concern for the environment a political statement - unless you discuss it in terms of public policies, party platforms, election issues, etc. 

Otherwise, I believe it is possible to cite a full range of historical events and prominent public figures without instigating a political or religious debate. 

Merely mentioning the fact that aristocracies have waned while elected governments have become more common over the past two centuries isn't, unto itself, a political statement.  It isn't even an opinion. It is simply stating a widely accepted fact. 

So too is citing the historical growth or decline of various religious beliefs / organizations. 

However, if a person argues for / against a particular political position or religious belief, it invites heated exchanges and becomes a banned forum topic. 

Cheers, Terry 

Sure, Terry.  And the links I posted were to try and point out to Len, that sometimes things aren't quite as simple as "Rich people get rich because they work hard and poor people stay poor because they do crime and use drugs".   Poor people can work exceedingly hard and never get rich, and some people get rich through crime, inheritance, luck or whathaveyou in addition to those that get there via skills and business tactics.

You can't just make a simple blanket statement to explain away the divide between poverty and wealth. The reasons are complex.

Originally Posted By Traveller (22 APR 2012 12:11pm)

Oi, Len - my link had direct reference to your statement!

 

...but then how would you know if you haven't read it?  I didn't ask you to discuss it on JA. I posted it for your personal edification regarding your blanket statement, which was in fact a political statement, which is why I preferred not to analyze it and discuss it in more detail .

 

To say that a group of people are wealthy simply because they worked hard for it, and that another group of people are not wealthy because they are on drugs, is a political statement; and besides that it is a political statement, it's an oversimplification, and may I add, an offensive one too.

 

I am not going to discuss this with you any further, because it IS politics.

 

I made a comment that your statement is an oversimplification, and I stand by that.  I kept my comment on your comment simple, in order to avoid a political discussion, which this will become if it is, in fact, discussed in any more detail.

******    (1)    If you read the first page of this thread youn will see that **I** did not open the 

See belpw :-

  ******    "  That's the economy for you. The poor have become poorer, the rich have been unaffected, and that means the class gap has widened and become more visible. 

Even people in the US have started to notice that they have a class sytem over there, what with the "We are the 99%" movement. 

I have no fondness for the upper classes.  "    ******

It does SEEM that the gap between rich & poor has got wider. But everything has changed over the past century - currencies, real estate, pensions, welfare, unemployment benefits, etc. I do not have the accurate research figures to verify if that is actually true or not.

BUT  I  DID  NOT  TOUCH  UPON  THAT  ISSUE !

I DO NOT agree that on average the poor have become poorer - I maintain that they have become less poor -0 this is a FACT and not politics.

80 years ago I used to visit my fathers parents who lived together with their family and large circle of friends in the slums of the East End of London ----- No electrictricity; no running water; no heating; no transport (they couldn't afford even a bicycle); only a very primitive outside toilet; no cash for entertainment of any sort (TV of course let alone computers not invented  - and they don;t run on gas) !

I don't say that there arenot SOME British families as poor as that today - but I GUESS that the percentage is pretty low !

Originally Posted By Len Green (22 APR 2012 2:21pm)

 

 

******    (1)    If you read the first page of this thread youn will see that **I** did not open the 

political) subject of rich/poor but it was started by Mr,. (Mrs ?) Eccles.

See belpw :-

 

  ******    "  That's the economy for you. The poor have become poorer, the rich have been unaffected, and that means the class gap has widened and become more visible. 

Even people in the US have started to notice that they have a class sytem over there, what with the "We are the 99%" movement. 

I have no fondness for the upper classes.  "    ******

 

It does SEEM that the gap between rich & poor has got wider. But everything has changed over the past century - currencies, real estate, pensions, welfare, unemployment benefits, etc. I do not have the accurate research figures to verify if that is actually true or not.

BUT  I  DID  NOT  TOUCH  UPON  THAT  ISSUE !

 

I DO NOT agree that on average the poor have become poorer - I maintain that they have become less poor -0 this is a FACT and not politics.

 

80 years ago I used to visit my fathers parents who lived together with their family and large circle of friends in the slums of the East End of London ----- No electrictricity; no running water; no heating; no transport (they couldn't afford even a bicycle); only a very primitive outside toilet; no cash for entertainment of any sort (TV of course let alone computers not invented  - and they don;t run on gas) !

 

I don't say that there arenot SOME British families as poor as that today - but I GUESS that the percentage is pretty low !

 

Len, I feel pretty sure that what MJ Eccles is talking about, is the global financial crisis of the last few years, which was mainly caused by the banking policies I linked to in those links that you're complaining about.   Surely even in Israel, the economy is seeing the repercussions of these events?  ..and if not, I'm very glad for your sake, but sadly it has dumped the rest of the world into an economic depresssion.