> now I know its fairly pointless but I am fairly pissed off at this 
> comment.
> I am an Australian. The fact the person said this without even 
> bothering to
> read it implies a disrespect for the people who died for my freedom, 
> and
> odds are indirectly his own, I'll tolerate pretty much anything 
> except that.

STOP. Please. By trying to be "artistic" I've caused problems.

I believe that he didn't mean disrespect for anything that's of value 
to us, because he didn't read far enough down to tell. It's partially 
my fault for not spelling it out - which I did purposefully. It wasn't 
meant to be a troll on my part, but it was meant to be interesting 
enough to attract people to have a look at what is a very special 
occasion for us. I would have thought that the mention of Winston 
Churchill would have been enough of a hint that something military was 
going on, but I don't think he read that far. On the other side of the 
ledger, it's generally a good idea that, if you are going to complain 
about a post, then you first make sure that it says what you think it 
does. Peter failed to do this.

Jake's comment about "died for my freedom" (which I agree with) 
probably needs a little explaining to many people here. Our troops 
were committed in support of the British Empire of the time and the 
war against Germany. Nobody knew where the troops would be used. We 
were at no risk from Turkey per se but the action was a part of the 
greater whole that was WW1. As in any such event nobody was perfect 
but I am personally happy that our country did the right thing, way 
back then, in committing troops as they did. A decision to fight any 
war is an agonising one (or should be). This "war to end all wars" was 
less well defined in morality than eg WW2 but, when you consider that 
the vast majority of it was fought against Germany but IN Belgium and 
France it gives things some perspective. Turkey made the unfortunate 
choice of siding with Germany. And were prompted to do so in large 
part by insensitive action by the UK just prior to hostilities 
commencing. And Winston Churchill was the prime instigator of the 
insensitivity. (He effectively commandeered two cruisers being made 
for the Turks, that the Turks had paid for by public subsription and 
denied them compensation. Not a clever act.)

> The references to Satanism well I find difficult to reply to in a 
> polite manner.

He thought (I think) that I was waxing all religious (has been known 
to happen :-) ) and was trying (I think) to make the point that one 
man's religion is another man's anathema. I think he did that quite 
well ;-).

> on a more logical note how does this guy know that Russell wasn't 
> referring
> to a satanistic festival anyway?

He didn't. But he didn't realise that I wasn't referring to an 
expressly Christian one. I mentioned prayers being said (which is 
entirely true) and used the term "holy" (which is extremely 
appropriate) and he drew incorrect conclusions.

I'm sorry that I caused such a solemn occasion to be the cause of any 
aggro.

I think a certain amount of mumbled apologies all round is in order. 
Nobody meant to offend excessively but things got a bit out of hand. 
I'll mumble first :-). Peter ?


        Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist