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}