"Direct action by government, does that count?"
No. Not unless you can think of some way for individuals outside government to get involved. "Direct Action" *implies* "Direct Action by individuals or groups of individuals" (at least in the context it's used here).
If you define any action of the government or, say, a corporation as "Direct Action" then surely you're just saying "anything done by anybody". Why on earth would a forum be set up to discuss that?
I really don't understand at all how you could define a *decision* by our Home Secretary to revoke an Indefinite Stay Permit as "Direct Action" (in the context you *know* it's meant here given that you say you spent plenty of time reading this forum before contributing) unless you were - as I say - defining *everything* that *anyone* does in that way. Which seems a little pointless don't you think?
As for personal insults. Well, I haven't paid much attention to what you've said on *every* thread. But in the ones I've read, it does seem as though you've stopped short doing that. You have made sarcastic and dismissive comments (i.e. comments that can in no way be construed as "constructive criticism" or even as "a contribution to a debate" - I'm thinking here of "that'll help!" - "that was sarcastic by the way"). Lemon was - I believe - banned for personal insults. It seems likely that, were he to return, he would continue doing everything exactly as before but stop just short of personal insults. That would provide him (in his new guise) with the illusion of a moral high ground - irritate people just enough to draw out an insult, and then post several messages complaining that "other people got banned for less".
I'm surprised you don't consider that kind of activity to be unpleasantly self-righteous.
As for Lawrence's insults. You'll have to ask him about that. I'm often a little irritated by Lawrence's reponses when the debate gets heated, but I don't speak for the guy. That crack about your friend's suicide was *way* beyond the pale in my view. Suicide has had a devastating effect on my life and, frankly, Lawrence's remark made me cringe. Although in his defence, he has apologised several times which is more than many will do on an online forum and I'm unaware of you having the good grace to at least acknowledge that apology even if you refuse to accept it - but I've not read every message so maybe you did.
I don't run this place, but I know the those who do well enough to realise that they don't mean "a decision by the Home Secretary" when they say "Direct Action". Which isn't to say that the piece you published was unwelcome or out-of-place (I'm sure there's plenty of "Righteous Talk" that it could have generated were people not so wary of your motives and the fact that you'll go out of your way to make sarky comments and try to belittle people - "Yeah right, that'll help!" - if they dare express an opinion you don't share).
I am pleased that Brian Haws' protest continues (to take a single example from recently - it doesn't encompass the whole of my point). I'm not pleased because it's going to stop the Iraq war, but for a number of - what I consider - very important moral, legal and philosophical reasons. Now, if I was to try and discuss those things with a group of people and one person who disagreed; who felt that there was no point to Brian Haw's legal victory at all; merely made snide and sarky remarks rather than engage in a proper debate, I'd stop debating. That's the sort of activity that depresses me. And more than that it pisses me off.
But I suspect that may be your intention (what other possible reason could there be for "that was sarcastic by the way!") So well done you.
|
