Ticomaya wrote:Oh, okay. For the record, if anyone thinks I was being critical of France in this thread, I was only being critical of the French Administration.
So you say now, and yet you just couldn't resist putting in the witless eye-rolling emoticon, huh? The title of your thread, "Is France stingy" says it all. Once again, i don't for a moment believe your protestations that you did not intend to indulge in France-bashing.
Quote:I would similarly refer to someone who is a fan of or someone who has studied Britain as an "Anglophile." I would use either of these words (Anglophile/Francophile) without any built-in malice.
Certainly the "malice" is not built into the word itself; it resides, rather, in the use of the term in the entire context of your initial post. Do you expect me to believe that you exhaustively searched the internet before posting this to make sure of your facts before you lambasted the French? Because if you do, i would point out to you that i did not just fall off the turnip truck. The entire tone of your initial post is one of "see what those nasty French are up to now--think you can defend this, lovers of the French?"
Quote:This is another example where you speak without wisdom.
I do hope that you're not so naive as to believe you are in a position to pass judgment on the wisdom of others, considering the lack of wisdom you have displayed in starting such a thread at all.
Quote:(I'm also not sure what you mean by a "gage.")
From dictionary.com (so you won't have to just take my word for it):
gage, n.
1. Something deposited or given as security against an obligation; a pledge.
2. Something, such as a glove, that is offered or thrown down as a pledge or challenge to fight.
3. A challenge.
Use either definition two or three, whichever you prefer. The point is that you used a taunting tone, you were challenging francophiles to explain this to you.
Quote:You can say it was "patently false statement," but the fact is it was as true a statement as I knew at the time. Why attribute its "falseness" to me? Do you, like Craven, suspect I suffer from "reading comprehension" problems? I understand what Walter's link shows. Do you understand it was written in French? I don't read French newspapers. And the article I quoted does not "clearly" relate the aid only to the 14 missing Frenchies. If that were the case, I would have pointed that out, because that would have been utterly reprehensible if they were only providing resources to rescue their own. I also did not claim that was all of the aid France was willing to provide, just as I did not believe the $35 million was all of the aid the US was willing to provide.
Yes, the article does clearly relate to monies intended for the search for French survivors of the disaster:
The Reuters article wrote:"There are probably dozens of French we are searching for and don't know where they are," he said.
"Many French and Europeans left on vacation without saying when or where they were going. So unfortunately we have to consider these numbers to be provisional."
Barnier was due to continue to Thailand on Wednesday morning to bring aid supplies and survey the damage from the giant wall of water triggered by an earthquake in Sumatra.
The French Defense Ministry was sending eight experts in identifying bodies and a military airplane that will fly over the Maldives and the Thai coast to search for people cut off by the flood and for the bodies of victims.
Paris has earmarked 100,000 euros ($135,400) for initial rescue efforts in Thailand. It planned to send 16 rescue workers to Thailand on Tuesday and 10 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka in the next few days, the ministry said.
And i made a point of quoting your bold-faced statement that "France has pledged $135,000." That is not what the article says--and this is the principle reason why i consider this entire post to be tendentious. I believe that from the outset, whether or not you knew it was false (as you
now claim) that this was all the aid France would send, you wished to create that impression. I don't believe for a moment that you did any other research, i believe you came across this article, and leaped on the opportunity to bash the American conservatives' favorite whipping boy, France. I base the belief on the tenor of every other post of yours that i've ever read which had a political context.
Quote:You've intimated several times in your remarks to O'Bill that I've failed to "prove my case" that France was stingy. I wasn't TRYING to prove any such case. I pointed out the facts as I knew them to be, and solicited a response from someone like Walter who could answer my question.
Intimated Hell, i stated it outright. If you were not trying to prove that France was stingy, from whence the title of your thread?
Quote:The thread resulted from the conflux of Egelund's remark and the "then" low pledged amount from France.
" . . . the 'then' low pledged amount from France."? France had already pledged 5.6 million Euros to the EU aid package, and the article which Walter posted shows that they pledged an additional 2.16 million Euros on Wednesday, December 29. Clearly, the 5.6 million Euros which they had added to the EU aid package came before. This is why i contend you did no research on French pledged aid, you just jumped all over an article which would make the French look bad, in your warped opinion. You object to my characterizing your opinion as warped? I came into this thread on page 17, and yes, i did read the thread before i posted.
Before i had posted anything:
On page 2, you wrote:Walter, I know you have defended France in the past, and you know I tend to not look favorably upon them, but the early aid figures from France were stark.
On page 5, you wrote:I am willing to believe the worst about France, and I don't even need a good reason.
So it should come as no surprise that it occurred to me in reading the thread that you were indulging in France-bashing, rapidly becoming an old conservative custom. After page 5, you no longer needed such remarks, as the usual suspects, notably O'Bill and Lash, were piling on and reveling in the fun, leaving you free to make a failed attempt to respond to CdK's criticisms.
Quote:It had nothing to do with the nationality of Mr. Egelund. He made the comment in his official capacity as a UN muckety-muck, but I didn't know his nationality, nor did I care.
You have repeatedly referred to this man as a "muckety-muck," are you now going to assert that you had no intention of vilifying the man? His remarks regarded ordinary foreign aid by western nations, and had no reference to the tsunami disaster. Do you expect people to believe that you are justified in slurring all of France because of the remarks of a UN official made without reference to French aid to the tsunami victims? There's absolutely no logic in that, and there is a good deal of further reason to construe from this that you were just leaping on an opportunity to bash France.
Quote:I appreciate your opinion that you would not care to meet me because you do not agree with my political views. With that attitude, I'm certain I would not want to meet you either. I would, however, be pleased to meet a great many of the posters on A2K with differing political views than mine. I find your attitude poor.
My attitude toward people who slander entire nations as a form of recreational humor always has been, and always will be poor.
Quote:I find this to be a tad idiotic. Are you serious?
I was, and remain, completely serious. I find your entire effort here idiotic, and i note with amusement that you couldn't stay away, you had to come back to attempt to weave a fabric of disingenuous denials after already having had your fun bashing France.
Quote:So it's okay to use a derogatory term because conservatives where you live use it in reference to the French? Bizarre.
Nothing which i wrote can be reasonably construed to suggest that the use of a derogatory term such as that is "okay." I used it out of contempt for the conservatives who enjoy such a passtime.
Quote:I'm not "innocent of antipathy toward the French" as a general rule. I'm not a lover of France, the French government, most things French, or of any of the French people I've personally met -- Our friend Francis notwithstanding, whom I do not find rude, but on the contrary, quite endearing. But the purpose of this thread was to question the amount of money that had been reportedly pledged by the French government.
I don't believe that last statement for a moment. See your quoted remarks above from pages 2 and 5.
Quote:And you are wrong that the article I posted "clearly " refers to only this amount to rescue 14 citizens. The article represented that was the amount pledged by France. It did not qualify it as only for any particular purpose. If you want to prove your abilities in reading comprehension, and my inadequacy in same, please prove your case.
No, the article does not "represent" that that amount was the amount pledged by France. The word "pledge" does not occur anywhere in that article. I read it, and immediately recognized that the amount listed was the amount "earmarked" (the term used in the article) for search and rescue efforts. CdK read it, and came to the same conclusion. But CdK is being far more charitable than i in ascribing your dirty work here to a lack of reading comprehension. Once again, i do not for a moment doubt that your intent from the outset was to bash France. You are convicted by your own posts.
