Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!tomczak From: tomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Il accuse... Message-ID: <460@harvard.ARPA> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 18:45:44 EST Article-I.D.: harvard.460 Posted: Tue Oct 29 18:45:44 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 01:28:32 EST References: <487@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <34@unc.unc.UUCP> <417@stcvax.UUCP> <127@crin.UUCP> <2337@flame.warwick.UUCP> <132@crin.UUCP> Reply-To: tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak) Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard Lines: 54 Summary: In article <132@crin.UUCP> tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) writes: > Now to the main argument. What I wanted to say is that there are at >least two ways of fighting for something you think is right: you can speak >out, let your ideas be known, that is fight on the intellectual level. In >this case, there is no reason for those attacked to fight back with deeds. >Of course, in many countries, you are detained and condemned for saying what >you mean; that is fortunately not the case for our western countries (NO, it >isn't... No argument will be started with those people who state that our >countries are not better than say the Soviet Union, that it is all the same >and so on... Open your eyes, please...). no we're not the same, the influences are simply more subtle and consequently more insidious. > > The second way of fighting for your ideas is with deeds, with acts. >Here, I do not want to argue about who is right and who is wrong in the >Greenpeace affair; but it is obvious that the Greenpeace organization is not >only fighting with words: they wanted to enter prohibited areas, and in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ why are they prohibited? Who prohibited? >past years they have done many things like blocking ports and so on. I don't >say that their ideas are wrong, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to them >and to the world when the other side fights back. > >I think that if you want to make >something positive for peace, the only way is to be a man of peace yourself, >in your surroundings. I have often expressed that I find a bit ridiculous >that people who got the Nobel prize for peace were not even able to live in >peace with their own wife; I know at least of one of them who has divorced >and remarried twice or thrice. Let me also mention the women in England who >camped at an air base to fight for peace, but they stayed there for so long >that some of the husbands divorced... Of course, you could say that you >cannot do enough by just staying in your own small surroundings; I think you >can, and that if you have got peace *inside* yourself, if you are able to >live in peace with your family, your neighbours, your collegues at work, >then and only then you are a man or a woman of peace. Say what? I don't believe that being a man of peace neccessarily means getting along well with people. There are powerful forces at work in the world against true peace. Those forces MUST be fought, I agree, with a peaceful heart. Gandhi created quite a bit of conflict however. Are you prepared to say Gandhi did not work from that peaceful heart? Maybe there are some people out there who could sincerely argue that viewpoint, but I wonder if we'll see a lot of flaming as a result. Perhaps I still misunderstand, if so enlighten me. >I have found peace with God and with all humans. Oh yeah? You make it sound easy, are you taking disciples? bill tomczak@harvard.{HARVARD.EDU, UUCP}