So today was my big day
-
Yes, this was the response I was expecting from someone. If you don't agree with us, then get out. To hell with acceptence and tolerance of other views. I think peter chen's reply was on the money.
only two letters away from being an asset
Actually, there's a lot of things I'm not wild about in terms of how the country is run, and I suspect we'd agree on many of these issues. Even when we didn't, I would actively defend your right to express your opinions. I may not have understood your post in the spirit you intended. You appeared to respond to a guy who was excited about becoming an American citizen with an attitude of "Why would you want to become a citizen of such a screwed up place?" Maybe that's not what you meant, but I'm sure you can see how it might come across as "this place sucks." If that were true, it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask, "if you think this place sucks, then why are you here?" My point was that if you're ashamed of America, you actually have the freedom to find a country that you wouldn't be ashamed of and pursue a life there. You'll find lots of cool places on the planet. I personally like it here, even if it's not perfect. However, unlike many places in the world, being an American means you're free to leave if you find someplace you like better. In other words, rather than belittling the country you live in, do something about it. Either get active and make it better, or find someplace better and be happy. That being said, your comments probably deserved a more well considered response than a trite one liner. In my defense, I was still working on my first cup of coffee. No disrespect intended, and if you really want to live here instead of someplace else, then I'm happy to have you in the family. I don't always agree with my other relatives, either. :)
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
Yes, this was the response I was expecting from someone. If you don't agree with us, then get out. To hell with acceptence and tolerance of other views. I think peter chen's reply was on the money.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
To hell with acceptence and tolerance of other views.
Well, I ask you to go back and read your post. It was NOT "Please explain why you wanted to become a citizen, I am not too happy with the place right now and would like understand your view." IMhO. In another words the lack of acceptance was fairly strong on YOUR Part. To me your post was came across to make your own political statement than an honest question and in the light of Robs post, was a poor place to make the statement.
-
Actually, there's a lot of things I'm not wild about in terms of how the country is run, and I suspect we'd agree on many of these issues. Even when we didn't, I would actively defend your right to express your opinions. I may not have understood your post in the spirit you intended. You appeared to respond to a guy who was excited about becoming an American citizen with an attitude of "Why would you want to become a citizen of such a screwed up place?" Maybe that's not what you meant, but I'm sure you can see how it might come across as "this place sucks." If that were true, it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask, "if you think this place sucks, then why are you here?" My point was that if you're ashamed of America, you actually have the freedom to find a country that you wouldn't be ashamed of and pursue a life there. You'll find lots of cool places on the planet. I personally like it here, even if it's not perfect. However, unlike many places in the world, being an American means you're free to leave if you find someplace you like better. In other words, rather than belittling the country you live in, do something about it. Either get active and make it better, or find someplace better and be happy. That being said, your comments probably deserved a more well considered response than a trite one liner. In my defense, I was still working on my first cup of coffee. No disrespect intended, and if you really want to live here instead of someplace else, then I'm happy to have you in the family. I don't always agree with my other relatives, either. :)
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
Last word on the subject
Christopher Duncan wrote:
My point was that if you're ashamed of America, you actually have the freedom to find a country that you wouldn't be ashamed of and pursue a life there.
Being ashamed of the actions of the government that represents you is not the same things and saying, "I'm feedup with the place and want to leave". I've found the "If you don't like it, leave" sentiment is more the typical American response to a viewpoint that can't be defended, i.e. a personal opinion. We don't all have have to get along, just be understood.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
To hell with acceptence and tolerance of other views.
Well, I ask you to go back and read your post. It was NOT "Please explain why you wanted to become a citizen, I am not too happy with the place right now and would like understand your view." IMhO. In another words the lack of acceptance was fairly strong on YOUR Part. To me your post was came across to make your own political statement than an honest question and in the light of Robs post, was a poor place to make the statement.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
It was NOT "Please explain why you wanted to become a citizen, I am not too happy with the place right now and would like understand your view." IMhO.
You're absolutely correct. I should have phrased it better, which is a problem electronic communications, intent is difficult to convey correctly. The interesting point is the person to whom the message was directed didn't appear to be offended, and in fact gave a reasonable and considered response. The misunderstanding is coming from those who could have just as easily said, "I disagree with your viewpoint", rather than the "go to hell" and "get out" responses.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
It was NOT "Please explain why you wanted to become a citizen, I am not too happy with the place right now and would like understand your view." IMhO.
You're absolutely correct. I should have phrased it better, which is a problem electronic communications, intent is difficult to convey correctly. The interesting point is the person to whom the message was directed didn't appear to be offended, and in fact gave a reasonable and considered response. The misunderstanding is coming from those who could have just as easily said, "I disagree with your viewpoint", rather than the "go to hell" and "get out" responses.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
the person to whom the message was directed didn't appear to be offended
Well, I've been playing this internet game for a dozen years; one either grows a thick skin or one gives up :) But seriously, it's never a decision taken lightly to move to another country, possibly forever, nor is the decision to become a citizen taken lightly. I'm not about to start having second thoughts based on interactions here.
Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^] My blog mirror http://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
-
JBurkey wrote:
See how that works?
Rubbish. Where was his personal attack on you? He said that he was ashamed of his country and the way that it has treated the rest of the world i.e. it's simply his opinion which he is both entitled to and free to state. Now, if you take it as a personal insult that somebody could possibly think that there is anything bad about your country, that's really your problem. His post simply stated his opinion, with no intent to offend (as opposed to yours).
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2.3 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote:
Rubbish. Where was his personal attack on you?
More Rubbish. He asked how he could have given offense since he first said "I don't mean to give offense." I merely provided an example whereby I first state that I mean no offense, and proceed to offend. The content and form offense was irrelevant. And don't pretend for one second that he had no intention of inflaming anyone with that post. That is either an insult to everyone else's intelligence, a sad commentary on HIS intelligence, or a terrible display of your own. Let's remember what the topic on this thread was - Someone was glad to have acheived something, on a friday night, and was feeling good about it. Why in the world would somebody go and crap all over it if they weren't trying to cause trouble, unless he is just the most socially inept bungler on the planet (a distinct possibility). He can have his opinion, I don't care. I ignore things I don't agree with all the time, but there's a time and a place for it - and it wasn't on this thread.
-
Interesting. That is the sort information you don't get from books, only from talking and being open to other ideas. It's interesting that I don't see anyone being offended by your comment that there is no monarchy in England.
only two letters away from being an asset
The date Colin mentioned was the date that Scotland entered into formal union with England to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the monarch being styled King of Great Britain. A century earlier, in 1603, Queen Elizabeth I of England died and the crown fell to James VI of Scotland, who saw himself as an emperor of the whole island. While James liked to call himself King of Great Britain, this title did not officially exist until political union in 1707. King James VI of Scotland and I of England (same bloke) was also responsible for the Union Jack (allegedly called 'Jack' after the Latin version of his name, Jacobus). It's my belief that the dominance of the red cross of St George, being superimposed on the white cross of St Andrew on the blue field, in the flag is a reflection that he considered England to be of prime importance in his domains. Certainly on gaining the crown of England he moved almost immediately to London and rarely visited Scotland. For completeness, Ireland (or parts thereof) had been a possession of the English crown since the 12th century but these posessions were not known as the Kingdom of Ireland until 1541, the King in question being Henry VIII. This was again a Personal Union (a situation where one King has more than one crown, rules more than one kingdom, but politically the kingdoms are separate). The Irish Parliament eventually were bribed into the Act of Union with Great Britain in 1800, which added Ireland (by this time wholly conquered by the British forces) to the new state, and added the red diagonal cross, supposedly representing St Patrick although not really recognised by Irishmen, to the Union Jack. The red diagonal parts are in fact only half a cross, divided along the corner-to-corner lines; the flag should be hung with the white diagonal cross uppermost with respect to the staff, indicating Scotland's seniority in the union, rotating clockwise across the flag (this is a heraldic convention) so that in the right-hand side of the flag (if the flag is seen with the staff on the left), the red appears above the white. Wales is not represented in the flag as Wales became a possession of England long before these events, in 1284 after being conquered by Edward I. Wales had never been a kingdom, it was ruled by various princes at the time of the English conquest. It's common for Americans to call this state England, but its recognised title is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.' England is a geographic area which isn't really represented
-
Taka Muraoka wrote:
Rubbish. Where was his personal attack on you?
More Rubbish. He asked how he could have given offense since he first said "I don't mean to give offense." I merely provided an example whereby I first state that I mean no offense, and proceed to offend. The content and form offense was irrelevant. And don't pretend for one second that he had no intention of inflaming anyone with that post. That is either an insult to everyone else's intelligence, a sad commentary on HIS intelligence, or a terrible display of your own. Let's remember what the topic on this thread was - Someone was glad to have acheived something, on a friday night, and was feeling good about it. Why in the world would somebody go and crap all over it if they weren't trying to cause trouble, unless he is just the most socially inept bungler on the planet (a distinct possibility). He can have his opinion, I don't care. I ignore things I don't agree with all the time, but there's a time and a place for it - and it wasn't on this thread.
JBurkey wrote:
Why in the world would somebody go and crap all over it if they weren't trying to cause trouble
Context is everything. Where was he trying to crap all over it? He simply asked "why" (and gave a hint as to why he was asking). If someone you knew just changed his nationality, what would your first question be?
JBurkey wrote:
unless he is just the most socially inept bungler on the planet (a distinct possibility)
Again, context. His profile indicates he is a strong contributor here. His icon indicates that he is a financial supporter. Look at his post here[^]. Most importantly, look at Rob's reply[^] to his original question. People, this is what mature, intelligent conversation looks like. Not everyone here is an childish, argumentative troll :|
JBurkey wrote:
He can have his opinion, I don't care. I ignore things I don't agree with all the time
This pretty much sums it up. I never ignore something simply because I don't agree with it. I might ignore someone because they are stupid or close-minded and there are plenty of people who I refuse to reply to but I'll always be willing and open-minded enough to to talk with someone who does something that I'm curious as to why.
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2.3 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
-
The date Colin mentioned was the date that Scotland entered into formal union with England to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the monarch being styled King of Great Britain. A century earlier, in 1603, Queen Elizabeth I of England died and the crown fell to James VI of Scotland, who saw himself as an emperor of the whole island. While James liked to call himself King of Great Britain, this title did not officially exist until political union in 1707. King James VI of Scotland and I of England (same bloke) was also responsible for the Union Jack (allegedly called 'Jack' after the Latin version of his name, Jacobus). It's my belief that the dominance of the red cross of St George, being superimposed on the white cross of St Andrew on the blue field, in the flag is a reflection that he considered England to be of prime importance in his domains. Certainly on gaining the crown of England he moved almost immediately to London and rarely visited Scotland. For completeness, Ireland (or parts thereof) had been a possession of the English crown since the 12th century but these posessions were not known as the Kingdom of Ireland until 1541, the King in question being Henry VIII. This was again a Personal Union (a situation where one King has more than one crown, rules more than one kingdom, but politically the kingdoms are separate). The Irish Parliament eventually were bribed into the Act of Union with Great Britain in 1800, which added Ireland (by this time wholly conquered by the British forces) to the new state, and added the red diagonal cross, supposedly representing St Patrick although not really recognised by Irishmen, to the Union Jack. The red diagonal parts are in fact only half a cross, divided along the corner-to-corner lines; the flag should be hung with the white diagonal cross uppermost with respect to the staff, indicating Scotland's seniority in the union, rotating clockwise across the flag (this is a heraldic convention) so that in the right-hand side of the flag (if the flag is seen with the staff on the left), the red appears above the white. Wales is not represented in the flag as Wales became a possession of England long before these events, in 1284 after being conquered by Edward I. Wales had never been a kingdom, it was ruled by various princes at the time of the English conquest. It's common for Americans to call this state England, but its recognised title is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.' England is a geographic area which isn't really represented
Very in depth, thanks. I knew a little of this, I spent about two years living in a small cottage near the remains of Fotheringhay Castle in Northhaptonshire, and often drove past Cromwell's place in Huntingdon, and found the history to very interesting.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
In fact I'm glad I have never actually met an American like you.
I'm glad you haven't either. Fortunately, they are few.
Rob Graham wrote:
I'm glad you haven't either. Fortunately, they are few.
I should just like to say that the vast majority of Americans that I've met have been very kind and courteous. I remember once after getting off a transatlantic flight. I had been up since 4AM UK time, I'd flown to Amsterdam, I got rerouted via Minniapolis (sp?) because of an earlier delay, I've got a two hour wait before another two hour flight and it is 6:30PM local (12:30AM my body-clock). I arrive totally bedraggled in a café in the airport and I'm so tired I don't even realise my tray is at a very unsafe angle and all my food is about to slide off and I'm trying to negociate some badly placed chairs that my bag has caught on. Some guy sitting at a near by table spots the impending disaster and comes over to help me move the chair out the way and reorient my tray so I don't lose my dinner. He didn't have to do that, and I know many people that would just watch and wait for the disaster to happen so they could have a good laugh.
Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * UK Security Evangelists On Tour (2nd November, Edinburgh) * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
The date Colin mentioned was the date that Scotland entered into formal union with England to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the monarch being styled King of Great Britain. A century earlier, in 1603, Queen Elizabeth I of England died and the crown fell to James VI of Scotland, who saw himself as an emperor of the whole island. While James liked to call himself King of Great Britain, this title did not officially exist until political union in 1707. King James VI of Scotland and I of England (same bloke) was also responsible for the Union Jack (allegedly called 'Jack' after the Latin version of his name, Jacobus). It's my belief that the dominance of the red cross of St George, being superimposed on the white cross of St Andrew on the blue field, in the flag is a reflection that he considered England to be of prime importance in his domains. Certainly on gaining the crown of England he moved almost immediately to London and rarely visited Scotland. For completeness, Ireland (or parts thereof) had been a possession of the English crown since the 12th century but these posessions were not known as the Kingdom of Ireland until 1541, the King in question being Henry VIII. This was again a Personal Union (a situation where one King has more than one crown, rules more than one kingdom, but politically the kingdoms are separate). The Irish Parliament eventually were bribed into the Act of Union with Great Britain in 1800, which added Ireland (by this time wholly conquered by the British forces) to the new state, and added the red diagonal cross, supposedly representing St Patrick although not really recognised by Irishmen, to the Union Jack. The red diagonal parts are in fact only half a cross, divided along the corner-to-corner lines; the flag should be hung with the white diagonal cross uppermost with respect to the staff, indicating Scotland's seniority in the union, rotating clockwise across the flag (this is a heraldic convention) so that in the right-hand side of the flag (if the flag is seen with the staff on the left), the red appears above the white. Wales is not represented in the flag as Wales became a possession of England long before these events, in 1284 after being conquered by Edward I. Wales had never been a kingdom, it was ruled by various princes at the time of the English conquest. It's common for Americans to call this state England, but its recognised title is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.' England is a geographic area which isn't really represented
Wonderfully detailed, and I learned something. I didn't know anything about the relationship with Ireland prior to 1800.
Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * UK Security Evangelists On Tour (2nd November, Edinburgh) * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog