Your "I'm not American" repetitive recording is being ignored so why bother?
Your comment, being in the passive voice, did not in fact address anybody specific. This is a feature of the passive voice. My response to it is as valid as that of anybody else. I lay claim to no magical powers in understanding why you would make this grammatical choice.
"Is being ignored" in fact is a grammatical formation that includes me within it, without my permission or agreement, and one that almost obligates a corrective response from me if I see it and do not happen to agree with the point you are making, if only to point out that you are attempting to speak for a group whose consensus you do not hold. In this case I spoke to answer the question you asked.
It is not appropriate for you to assume a consensus to castigate Grinch that includes me within it without checking with me first. on a straightforwardly grammatical basis. You asked a question; I answered it, as might anybody, given the way you phrased it. I was not ignoring Grinch's "I'm not an American" comments." And while I did not know why Grinch kept repeating them for certain, I had a fairly high certainty — enough to venture a guess.
This is one of the reasons I try to cut the passive voice out of my poetry and as much of my prose as I can. When I use the passive voice, people don't understand me as clearly as I want them to, Mike.
As for some of the other material you bring up, I find some of it interesting. I'm interested in the material about Tom Daschel and the drug industry, and would like to do some checking on my own about that. You do have a good and insightful eye about things, and you are able to pick up things sometimes where I have blind spots. This may be one of them; I don't know yet.
Having Hilary as Secretary of State seems to me to be a pretty good idea. She did disagree with him about a lot of things in the campaign, and his appointment of her as Secretary of State seems to me to indicate that he's willing to be tough if tough is needed. I know you don't like Bill Clinton, and won't try to change your mind on that. I don't think he's perfect myself, but I do think he's a gifted politician. I think that it's important that you talk to people diplomatically, and if you get too strict about the pre-conditions you may never talk to people you need to talk to. I think, for example, of Nixon and Kissinger talking to China. I think both side probably had to take a lot of deep breaths before those talks came off, and a lot of pre-conditions, though not all, has to be laid aside on both sides. Remember how inflexible we had been before on Taiwan? And how inflexible they had been as well? All that had to be eased back considerably by both sides before talks took place. Support of China for Vietnam? The Chinese Russian axis? The Domino theory?
We and they had to do a lot of setting aside of pre-conditions before the meetings happened. They could have gone badly. It was a risk, but things did work out well.
It's too easy to confuse rhetoric with reality.
I have that at least begins to engage some of the material you're talking about in the thread from your perspective. I'm not intending to throw up roadblocks here, Mike, simply trying to keep the drama down.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven