> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> Hmmmm. . .
John,
At the risk of flaming and borring the others members of this group
etc...
Yes I am British, yes I replied not to ther original statement but to your
reply. I would like to think that this was because of the tone of the post
rather than the pro american/anti-the rest of the world content.
However, at the risk of sticking my neck out; I think that assuming that the
US can continue to do whatever it likes forever is somewhat naive. The idea
that any country can exist as a isolationist power in today's close nit
international community is pretty absurd really. No country is entirely
indipendant of any other. The final resolution that such a power could employ
is that of force I suppose, but could anyone, even the enourmous military
power of the US, hold down (or even take) an empire sufficient to suply all
the resources it requires? I think not.
I am not anti-American, I do not claim to fully understand the American
people but that is pretty much par for the course. However, I do not feel that
George Bush's administration is doing the USA any favours with its standings
in the international community. Anyway, I shall stop here, it is just my
opinion. However, it is far from relevant to this list, which is why I feel
that discusions along these lines should stop.
Anyways, John if you would like to take this discusion to off-list, then
please do I am perfectly prepared to discuss my opinions, but as I say, not on
this list.
In a message dated 3/11/02 8:33:48 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> richardkirke@hotmail.com writes:
> I do not claim to fully understand the American
Glad you admit it:o) Now if we AMERICAN's would admit we don't fully
understand ourselves.......
:::grin:::
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
We're too heterogenous to make a lot of generalizations about. And the ones
you can make always have lots of exceptions.
> >
Well, you know what they say: "All rules have exceptions, including this
one."
Yup, the idea of an American people being one social group is an unbelievably
naiive, if automatic assumption. Noting that the British people fit into
hudreds of types, groups or whatever you want to call them.
> Yup, the idea of an American people being one social group is an
Richard,
Well humans are a bit odd. We're one of the few animals on the planet that see
in color and what do we do with that gift, we use it to create an issue. Also
with all the technology we have not significantly progressed in mental
development beyond the Cro-Magnon .As evidence for this lack of species
personal development. Sociologists agree that in the realm of colonization of
space and planets etc. 5,000 persons is the upper limit because anything over
that and humans brake down but, anything less would be unsustainable. I guess
at our core we are still tribal...(well now that we are all bummed out but
back on at least a futuristic topic) Have a better one....)
Don said:
> Sociologists agree that in the realm of colonization
I had intuited that, that's one reason for the Alarishi being spread out among
a lot of rocks, but I'd be interested to get more detail. Sources?
[quoted original message omitted]
> Don M wrote:
> > >Sociologists agree that in the realm of colonization
*SNIP*
> A NASA study done in 1990 (I think). I only remember it because the
Sounds plausible, and makes for interesting early colonial period game
settings, especially if you have a fictional setting with planets around
closer systems, maybe even reachable via sub-C travel. Gives you an
even deeper sense of remoteness on such colonies.
3B^2
> --- Richard Kirke <richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:
> unbelievably naiive, if automatic assumption. Noting
Less so than the US. Y'all don't make a religion out of "diversity" and your
immigrant population is much smaller, percentage wise. Ours isn't so high,
until you consider 2nd and 3rd generation ones that still havn't integrated
100%. I know some 4th generation Americans that still speak passable Greek,
for instance.
G'day,
> A NASA study done in 1990 (I think). I only remember it because the
A more recent one said they should ideally get to know each and be made to
live with each other before they left Earth. This is especially true for those
that will be living in each others pockets for long (e.g. spaceship crews)...
Red Mars' living in Antarctica first is pretty much spot on really.
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:30:11 EST ShldWulf@aol.com writes:
We are suppposed to **understand** ourselves?!?!?!?!
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:45:46 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Individually Heterogenous.... sounds about right!
And the ones you can make
> always have lots of exceptions.
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> My impression is that in the last two decades or so,
Yeah. I've been trying to figure out what was up with all those Turks and
Kurds in FRG for a while now.
> At 9:48 AM -0800 3/15/02, John Atkinson wrote:
Could it be they are willing to work hard tough jobs when ex-DDR
German's aren't?