How was I speaking for you? -- I am not aware of having done that.
If I've done something wrong here, I apologize, but I was just trying to mention that I'd also been exchanging with you, because, as I mentioned, it is difficult to retrace some conversations on this site when there's a huge amount of traffic.
How was I speaking for you? -- I am not aware of having done that.
If I've done something wrong here, I apologize, but I was just trying to mention that I'd also been exchanging with you, because, as I mentioned, it is difficult to retrace some conversations on this site when there's a huge amount of traffic.
As a result, some conversations get truncated because, being the ultimate anti-nerd, I can't find my way back to them.
As far as I am concerned, all the remainder of the comment I made consists of my own view, no one else's.
*
Ah, wait a moment, now I see what you are referring to:
"Kathy Clark doesn't like the idea of grasping this nettle, the obvious dangers... Who likes what has to be done? No difference -- it must be done, so do it."
But isn't this is all free, open discussion? You expressed your understandable unease about both action and inaction and I recall answering you, using a different metaphor. This is just a repetition, but the main burden of my comment here was a rebuttal of Fern's rather strange remark -- as though I'd dream of separating any human being's head from their body! I'm no Robespierre!
I repeat my overall point of view, namely that when faced with a great danger inaction is not an option. Typically here, one is left on the horns of a dilemma, because there is no way of avoiding danger, whatever one does or does not do.
Fortunately, the responsibility for indicting these criminals does not fall to any of us...
How was I speaking for you? -- I am not aware of having done that.
If I've done something wrong here, I apologize, but I was just trying to mention that I'd also been exchanging with you, because, as I mentioned, it is difficult to retrace some conversations on this site when there's a huge amount of traffic.
As a result, some conversations get truncated because, being the ultimate anti-nerd, I can't find my way back to them.
As far as I am concerned, all the remainder of the comment I made consists of my own view, no one else's.
*
Ah, wait a moment, now I see what you are referring to:
"Kathy Clark doesn't like the idea of grasping this nettle, the obvious dangers... Who likes what has to be done? No difference -- it must be done, so do it."
But isn't this is all free, open discussion? You expressed your understandable unease about both action and inaction and I recall answering you, using a different metaphor. This is just a repetition, but the main burden of my comment here was a rebuttal of Fern's rather strange remark -- as though I'd dream of separating any human being's head from their body! I'm no Robespierre!
I repeat my overall point of view, namely that when faced with a great danger inaction is not an option. Typically here, one is left on the horns of a dilemma, because there is no way of avoiding danger, whatever one does or does not do.
Fortunately, the responsibility for indicting these criminals does not fall to any of us...