July 17, 2003

CAPITALISM AS PROVOCATION

Magnus Linklater of The Times discovers something that Merde in France learned quite a while ago:

The issue was debated many times, but it took shape, for me, in the course of a lengthy and brilliant discourse on the future of the market economy, from a French speaker. While outlining thoughts on financial regulation that would have sat perfectly well on this page, he devoted one section of his speech to the “symbolism” of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre. It was of course, he said, an evil act, but the twin towers, as symbols of Western capitalism, had become an almost inevitable target for terrorists; their collapse had something of the Old Testament about it — the razing of a monument to untrammelled power. If we were to counter future threats, we should create different symbols — a form of capitalism that would be less divisive than the American version.

It slipped in so neatly, so rationally, that no one, not even the Americans, listening intently through their earphones, thought to challenge it. Indeed, it was only as I considered it afterwards that I realised what had been said. The implication, not openly stated, was that US economic power was, in itself, a justification for terrorism ...

Posted by Tim Blair at July 17, 2003 11:02 AM
Comments

Actually, one of the interesting effects of the September 11 attacks was to transform the symbolism of the World Trade Center from "ill-conceived, government-created 1960s urban renewal boondoggle", which is how people basically thought of it when it still stood, to "monument to Western capitalism", which is what left-wing polemicists and other deep thinkers like to call it now that it no longer exists. That's actually quite an impressive shift, if you think about it.

Posted by: Combustible Boy at July 17, 2003 at 12:18 PM


"The implication, not openly stated, was that US economic power was, in itself, a justification for terrorism..."

I disagree.

I think he was saying that in-your-face-just-how-good-are-we-then-check-out-our insanely-big-buildings US economic power might get you into trouble.

An analogy if I may: Drop dead sexy girl goes to a rough area of town in skimpy, revealing clothes. She gets sexually assaulted.

Her wearing sexy clothes was not a "justification" for her getting attacked - but being desirable and being in-your-face about it was possibly a stupid thing to do.

Erm... I'm not saying I agree with the French dude either, all I'm saying is that Magnus Linklater has drawn the wrong conclusion.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 12:42 PM

Fuck you, Big. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 17, 2003 at 12:59 PM

you're still indulging in the blame-the-victim shit, big ram. i was six blocks away on september 11th. i lost several friends. fuck you, respectfully.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 01:03 PM

Sorry Big, I think you've forgotten that rational discussion of the geopolitical causes of terror is out of bounds these days.

Too many big words, and it's outside the comfort zone of the armchair reactionary. No thinking allowed!

Posted by: Bon Scott at July 17, 2003 at 01:07 PM

You might as well argue that the Eiffel Tower as a symbol of French cultural arrogance, deserves to be razed - an inevitable target, being a monument to European hegemony over lesser world cultures.

It makes as much sense - ie nonsense.

Posted by: Rob at July 17, 2003 at 01:12 PM

Hear, hear Bingley.

Also, Big R., your analogy is, false and utter rot.The notion a gorgeous woman is just asking for a battering is also wicked.As for..` desireable and being in your face about it': so obvious isn't Big Rectum, a gorgeous woman should dress like a hag, make sure none of her beauty shines forth.Better still, she should go to a make up artist and apply artificial means to effect ugliness. Next, there `oughta be law' which compels beauties to `uglify' themselves or else they will be criminally liable for any attacks against them due to non-compliance with said regulation.
That, Big, R, sums up the drivel you posted.

Posted by: d at July 17, 2003 at 01:12 PM

I suppose, then, Bon, that, rationally speaking, since a majority of Americans are supremely pissed off at Arab/Muslims in general, it would only be right to commit a terrorist act by some jet jockey (or two guys in a launch silo) nuking some important symbol of Islam, like say Mecca??

Then everyone could ask, "Why do they hate them?"

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at July 17, 2003 at 01:13 PM

there is nothing 'rational' in saying that having a big building in our own country justifies some little demented fucks from 6,000 miles away shaving all the hair off of their unbathed bodies and flying jumbo jets into aforementioned buildings, killing 3,000 people in the process, fuckwad, respectfully.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 01:15 PM

"you're still indulging in the blame-the-victim shit, big ram."

Settle everyone.

I CLEARLY stated that I wasn't agreeing with Frenchy's comments.

I said that Magnus Linklater's conclusion, that their was an implication that "US economic power was, in itself, a justification for terrorism..." is wrong.

Frenchy was talking about IN-YOUR-FACE US economic power. And I wanted to make that clarification.

This reminds me of Helen Garner "The First Stone" shitfight we had in Oz a few years back.

Sheesh.


Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 01:22 PM

The gas from that dead rock star is to "in my face" can I fling him with my catapult?.

Posted by: Gary at July 17, 2003 at 01:24 PM

"An analogy if I may: Drop dead sexy girl goes to a rough area of town in skimpy, revealing clothes. She gets sexually assaulted.

Her wearing sexy clothes was not a "justification" for her getting attacked - but being desirable and being in-your-face about it was possibly a stupid thing to do."

sorry, big, but where is the slightest, ever-so-teensiest note of condemnation of the bastards that attacked her? you're saying quite clearly that she is to blame.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 01:25 PM

d, perhaps big owns a boutique that sells burkhas...

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 01:28 PM


“Also, Big R., your analogy is, false and utter rot.The notion a gorgeous woman is just asking for a battering is also wicked.”

“you're saying quite clearly that she is to blame.”

I never said it was true, d, Bingley. I even carefully chose the word “possibly” in my analogy. I was saying that's what FRENCHY was saying.

Are we clear?

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 01:30 PM

"The implication, not openly stated, was that US economic power was, in itself, a justification for terrorism..."
"I think he was saying that in-your-face-just-how-good-are-we-then-check-out-our insanely-big-buildings US economic power might get you into trouble."

ok, i'll play. are you saying that he's saying, while never, of course, saying so yourself, that us economic power, and the supposed symbols thereof, was not the 'justification' for the attacks but rather the 'cause' then? because that's all my caipirinha-besotted brain can make of your equivocations.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 01:51 PM

The parasitic leeching capitalism of frogland?

I still have this in my links via Scotland's freedomandwhisky:

"It looks as though EU plans could result in the Scottish fishing industry being wiped out at a cost of 20,000 jobs. In an earlier report in Tuesday's Daily Mail, I read that EU proposals for deep-sea fishing off our North-West coast would give France 80% of the quota, another 18% split between Ireland and Spain leaving 2% for Scottish fishermen. And Scottish taxpayers would have to fund the policing of this arrangement which covers areas that are entirely within UK territorial waters. Will our politicians do anything about this? Of course not.

Mark my words. It's only a matter of time before the EU lays claim to North Sea oil."

Posted by: Sandy P. at July 17, 2003 at 01:52 PM


"ok, i'll play. are you saying that he's saying, while never, of course, saying so yourself, that us economic power, and the supposed symbols thereof, was not the 'justification' for the attacks but rather the 'cause' then? because that's all my caipirinha-besotted brain can make of your equivocations."


No. I'm not saying that either.

I'm as right-wing as they come. I'm so right-wing that I'd make Anne Coulter shake her head in dismay.

I was just being Mr Smartass English Professor and trying to point out that Magnus Linklater had slightly missed the point (IMHO).

But because I didn't start screeching for revenge, and because I offered an obtuse analogy about sexual assault, a lot of you morons went completely batty.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 02:02 PM

Well Big, Bon Scott (great nic!),

As a ranty lefty myself, I have to say it appears that political correctness is not exclusively for us bollinger bolsheviks.

I would be the first to jump down your throat if you implied that a woman was asking for it by wearing skimpy clothes. However any rational person can see that you did not. YOur point was moderate, well (and tactfully) worded, and deserves more consideration.

There was a sharp chism on the left between the extreme view that the US "deserved it", and a moderate, genuinely felt view held by the likes of myself, that the act was unconscionable, barbaric in every way, but could be possibly understood as a question of cause and effect.

Please keep debating this point in a rational way; there is no reason that our societies cannot consider it while at the same time doing everything we can to wipe genuine terrorism off the face of the planet.

Posted by: MGarfield at July 17, 2003 at 02:10 PM


Good God! I'm about to agree with a lefty...

MGarfield, I too was surprised at the "Fuck you my friends died no further correspondence will be entered into" reaction I received.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 02:16 PM

well, i can't speak for anyone else, but this moron went batty because your analogy, far from being obtuse, made exactly the same point as the frog, that scumbags are justified in attacking people who are richer/prettier/more successful than they are, a point that this moron disagrees with. and i haven't seen anyone screech for revenge yet, so i'm not quite sure what relevance that has.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 02:16 PM

"I too was surprised at the "Fuck you my friends died no further correspondence will be entered into" reaction I received."

from whom?

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 02:24 PM


"well, i can't speak for anyone else, but this moron went batty because your analogy, far from being obtuse, made exactly the same point as the frog, that scumbags are justified in attacking people who are richer/prettier/more successful than they are, a point that this moron disagrees with."

MADE EXACTLY THE SAME POINT.

Score!

So my analogy was perfect. Now we're getting somewhere… Yet Magnus Linklater concluded that Frenchy meant [sorry to push this rather disturbing example to the nth degree] that just because she was FEMALE, she deserved to be assaulted, irrespective of how she dressed.

Can you see his flawed logic? Can you see how me pointing this out has NOTHING to do with whether or not I agree with what Frenchy said?

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 02:26 PM

Big Ramifications

I think you are the recipient of friendly fire.

Posted by: Gary at July 17, 2003 at 02:31 PM

actually, no. i believe the flaw is in your reading. frenchy clearly says that american capitalism is divisive and the cause, in much the same way that you specifically refer to a 'drop dead babe' as opposed to a mere female.
and yes, i agree it has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with him, but to be fair you've also never said that you disagreed with him, either.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 02:37 PM

Always wondered why, Bingley, Melb.'s Sts are filled with mobile tents.Mystery solved.

O.K. Big R. Yet, still don't see the fallacy given, from the Frenchman's remarks the implication is crystal clear.

M.Garfield, as long as `possibly' is a conditional.But then, `cause and effect' is a specious argument. While causality is , on some topics, a convenient word, even in science it no longer is used with a platonistic-Aristolian sense.And certainly doesn't apply in this case except in the trivial sense: what caused the evil events was:vermin taking over planes and forcing flight into...

What is even more repugnant about the Frenchman's assertions is using such a villainous act by scum in advancing the French Government's explicit aim of trying to impose mercantilism as well as bring European countries and the control of one supra-national Socialist dictatorship.

He then uses the crime to indulge in a thinly disguised rant against capital and free markets.

That Frenchmen,and the French Government, given the fact he articulated his government's position, show themselves to what self-serving, malicious, viscious , lying , cheating, types they are. Certainly warrants a strongly worded reply from each government, at least of the three anglos.

Those Frenchies' crime, that speech, embletically conveyed by such contemptuous abuse in citing an event so shocking, an abuse of those who died and their loved ones left to weep.
No , not a strongly worded diplomatic note. What should happen to that Frenchman and each member of his government, is some very decent gents walk straight up to them and forthrightly express disgust by hitting each of them with a fist clenched square on their noses. Then kick him out of New York and send them back to France which is fast sinking into econmoic depression .

Posted by: d at July 17, 2003 at 02:39 PM

Big Ram,
Whether or not you realise it, all this talk of cause and effect is just an attempt to rationalise what was simply an irrational act. Typical liberal nonsense.

There is very little distinction between this and the semantics of "justification". As far as I am concerned, they infer the same thing. Thus Magnus Linklater has not drawn the wrong conclusion.

Posted by: Dan at July 17, 2003 at 02:49 PM


"...walk straight up to them and forthrightly express disgust by hitting each of them with a fist clenched square on their noses."


d,

have you, by chance, read Roald Dahl's short story, "Vengeance is Mine, Inc."?

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 02:53 PM

I think the issue at the heart of Linklater's article concerns symbols. The French speaker argued that:

1. The twin towers symbolised capitalism,
2. Capitalism is divisive,
therefore 3. Knocking over the towers (and killing lots of people) was an attack on capitalism.

The problem with symbolology is that people just flat out disagree on what things like buildings mean; a point made very clearly by the first poster to this thread. Interpreting the attack on the twin towers as an attack on capitalism rests on the first premise being true. And for many people it's not. The twin towers were buildings that housed offices and people. End of story. Knocking them over and killing people was no more an attack on capitalism than raping a pretty girl in skimpy clothes is an attack on [insert whatever you think pretty girls in skimpy clothes might symbolise]. Which brings me to Big Rams false analogy: this is how the pretty-but-skimpily-dressed-girl-gets-raped argument would have to look to be truly analogous:

1. Pretty and skimpily dressed girls symbolise loose morals [you could insert anything you want in here],
2. Loose morals are evil,
therefore 3. Attacking pretty and skimpily dressed girls is an attack on loose morals.

Sound kooky? If so, then you probably understand what Linklater was getting at.

Posted by: Preston Whip at July 17, 2003 at 03:17 PM


Wrong.

1. Pretty and skimpily dressed girls symbolises "hubba hubba, damn!"
2. "Hubba hubba, damn!" makes evil men do evil things.
therefore 3. Attacking pretty and skimpily dressed girls will, unfortunately, happen - so it's best not to be so in-your-face about it.

That's what Frenchy was saying.

Preston, I also like the first post... and it looks like Frenchy got it wrong. But I still disagree with Linklater's conclusion.

False analogy indeed.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 03:33 PM

I find it hard to believe that the French, who are forever going on and on about how free they are of the sexual neuroses that plague barbaric peoples such as Americans, would ever use the short-skirted-woman-asking-for-it analogy to describe September 11th. Not to mention that your bringing it up was not exactly novel: in fact, it is quite old and stale.

In any case, there are plenty of articles on the internet wherein the French are grousing about our overwhelming economic and military power. In that context any talk of us being too flaunting of our culture and wealth is nothing more than a mask over the more basic concern of economic rivalry; Linklater figured that out, but you (perhaps because you are "more rightwing than Ann Coulter" and disapprove of what you see as ostentatious "display") are content to accept the surface blather about "those insanely-big buildings" as sufficient explanation for how the French are acting.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 17, 2003 at 04:33 PM

Tsk..Tsk..Tsk. Hasn't anyone been paying attention to the various 'elites' in all countries (media, academia, 'activists') who have tried to tell us in so many ways: US = bad?

It's true, many haven't gotten the idea yet. That's why they'll drone on and on about the many evils the US has committed.

If we put our brains in a jar, we can just give in to their 'so logical and enlightened' message. We must believe the US = bad (no matter what, ALWAYS bad) or these people won't shut up. Their droning is like the Chinese Water Torture I've read about. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drives me nutz!!

They have other 'lessons' to teach us, but this is one of their main lessons. They may stop the droning for a time if we all agreed with them.

They have a 'wonderful new world' just waiting to be ushered in. A world where we won't have to think for ourselves any more. Just follow the party line. Easy. Much easier than thinking for yourself, don't you agree?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 17, 2003 at 04:46 PM

Well, now you are all settled into a slightly more reasonable debate. So, the French as lecturing hypocrites? Too right. Read "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families." By a humanist lefty from what I can gather, but he certainly doesn't see the French under that banner (I forget his name).

It is basically a gripping piece of investigative journo into the Rwandan slaughter. Guess which country effectively gave fiscal and military support to the perpetrators of the most efficient slaughter of humans in history (600-800,000 in a few weeks)?? And continued to do so AFTER the slaughter was well underway? Oui.

Odd conduct for a country that frets so much over loss of civilian life....

Posted by: MGarfield at July 17, 2003 at 05:30 PM


>> "I find it hard to believe that the French, who are forever going on and on about how free they are of the sexual neuroses that plague barbaric peoples such as Americans, would ever use the short-skirted-woman-asking-for-it analogy to describe September 11th"

Good for you. That's not my point, however.

>> "Not to mention that your bringing it up was not exactly novel"

Irrelevant.

>> "in fact, it is quite old and stale."

Irrelevant.

>> "In any case, there are plenty of articles on the internet wherein the French are grousing about our overwhelming economic and military power."

So what? I was referring to the article Tim linked. In this discussion thread. I wasn't talking about the "plenty of other articles" out there, shitheels.

>> "In that context any talk of us being too flaunting of our culture and wealth is nothing more than a mask over the more basic concern of economic rivalry; Linklater figured that out."

No, Linklater made an slight error in reasoning and I am trying to point it out. No more, no less.

>> "but you (perhaps because you are "more rightwing than Ann Coulter" and disapprove of what you see as ostentatious "display") are content to accept the surface blather about "those insanely-big buildings" as sufficient explanation for how the French are acting."

Um. Yeah. Whatever.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 17, 2003 at 06:01 PM

All those various 'elites' in all countries (media, academia, 'activists') who have tried to tell us in so many ways: US = bad?
If we have to defend against the skurge that is Islam by ourselves forever,That's what we will do. If you want to jump on the muslim's side because you agree that women shouldn't be allowed out of the house or shouldn't reveal their wrists in public. Fine Or maybe your one of those people who are secretly in favor of genocide as long as their killing Jews. Thats FINE TOO We will take on the Muslims and you , you worthless social relativistic islamo nazi appologists. Bring it on

Posted by: james at July 17, 2003 at 06:14 PM

fuck france

Posted by: paul at July 17, 2003 at 06:46 PM

Big Ram: ah, what the hell. Analogy schmanalogy. We all agree on the hubba hubba, damn bit (pretty funny, I thought). And I have a train to catch full of pretty skimpily-dressed young girls, so if I may, I'll bow out gracefully and head off for a half hour of pleasurable viewing.

Like you, I think the first posting was excellent.

Gotta run, Chinese girls in Central walk fast.

Posted by: Preston Whip at July 17, 2003 at 08:27 PM

Well said Paul

I'm just trying to work out the symbology on Frances part of blowing up Muaroa Atoll.

That Atoll was a symbol of South Pacific beauty which it clearly flaunted too much - therefore it deserved to get blown up.

Posted by: Gilly at July 17, 2003 at 08:39 PM

With analogies of short skirts, it's as good time as any to link to Mark Steyn's post last year comparing those excusing gang rapes to those excusing terrorism.

However, I'd agree that the World Trade Centre would represent some of the things Islamists hate.

Posted by: Andjam at July 17, 2003 at 08:56 PM

Bad anology- To be analogous to the US it would have to be "Scantily clad, drop dead gorgeous, Beautiful girl CARRYING A BIG GUN."

Posted by: Irish Godfather at July 17, 2003 at 09:45 PM

sorry, big, but your sophistry and primping does nothing to deny the validity of linklater's interpretation nor expose any 'flaw' in his reasoning.
but 'divisive american capitalism' does allow people to disagree, a clear flaw that frenchy will resolve for us.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 17, 2003 at 10:36 PM

The World Trade Center had no geo-political symbolism whatsoever. It symbolised an office block where people go to work. 3000 of those people were killed by other people who were financially well-off, and had never been "oppressed" in their lives.

The lunatics attacked civilians who had never done anything: ie it was an insane, unhinged attack on a couple of buildings, yet we are led to believe it was somehow a "cry for help" by the "global oppressed".

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Posted by: Steve Edwards at July 18, 2003 at 01:08 AM

I see at least one person may be sarcasm impaired.
So, let me state: My Previous post (US=bad) was sarcasm!!

I thought it was obvious. Obviously I was mistaken. (Never ASSuME!!)

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 18, 2003 at 01:27 AM

The problem is that the left has adopted a ploy from the Muslims, by making the accusation of lying a greater crime than the act of lying itself, regardless of whether it's true or not.

This allows them to say things like, "I'm not criticizing the US, but they really deserved the WTC attacks because they are such an evil nation." Then, when someone says, "But you ARE criticizing the US," they go ballistic. "HOW DARE YOU SAY I'M CRITICIZING THE US WHEN I CLEARLY STATED NOT TWO SECONDS AGO THAT I WASN'T CRITICIZING THE US!"

The fact is, Big Ram, that you ARE blaming the victims. And no amount of declaring that "I clearly said that I wasn't blaming the victims" will change the fact that you DID blame the victims.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at July 18, 2003 at 05:46 AM

In other words: we should know better than to build tall buildings?

How can it be that idiot's like "bon scott" speak with such condescending authority yet can have failed to read what Bin Laden and Al Qaida actually give as their reasons for attacking the US? 9/11 wasn't a blow on behalf of the wretched of the earth. It was an assault by a bunch of frustrated religious fascists against modernity orchestrated by a lunatic millionaire who's goal is to remake the world in the image of the Taliban. The reasons bin Laden gave for the Bali bombing are even more nauseating.

But listen, lefty, you and your friends take sides with him and everyone else will continue not to take you seriously.

Posted by: S.A. Smith at July 18, 2003 at 09:02 AM

I understand that the Petronas Towers in Mulsim Malaysia are the tallest office buildings in the world. Do I now have a free pass to crash a planeload full of people into them?

Or does this free pass only work for tall office buildings in the US?

Posted by: Irene A. at July 18, 2003 at 11:38 AM

Didn't read Dahl as a child B.R., was too absorbed with Papa Doc's ouvre.

Posted by: d at July 18, 2003 at 12:40 PM

Should have continued:

... too absorbed with Pap Doc's ouvre to waste time on mush.

Posted by: d at July 18, 2003 at 12:42 PM


Oh. Coz it's a story about punching people on the nose. People who really deserve it.

Thought that's where you might have got your idea.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 18, 2003 at 06:14 PM


>> "The fact is, Big Ram, that you ARE blaming the victims. And no amount of declaring that "I clearly said that I wasn't blaming the victims" will change the fact that you DID blame the victims."

Show me where I blamed the victims,you fucking moron.

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 18, 2003 at 06:23 PM

The World Trade Center was built as a real estate venture. It was not built by the United States government. Its sole purpose was to provide professional office space to renters and make money for the buildings owners. It was never built as a symbol of American economic prowess. How people come to that conclusion is a wonder. It takes a lot of mental masturbation for that to work.

It does not matter the reason for the attack. And the U.S. did not attack al Queda and Afghanistan, which was harboring al Queda, for revenge, we responded militarily to the Trade Center attack out of self defense.

And just so no one gets their feelings hurt I formally apologize on behalf of the United States of America and our citizens to the rest of the world for not being a poor backwater shithole of a country. I sorry that we are rich. I am also sorry that you are offended by our wealth. From this day foward I vow that I, and anyone else that I can convince, will vote for leftist (socialist) candidates running for high political office so that our nation's wealth can be seized from the more productive parts of the economy redistrubited to the less productive parts of the economy quickly bringing about the total collapse of the U.S. economy. Of course this will send the world into a crisis of biblical proportions, but hey, we'll all be equal in povery, fanatical muslims will see the error of their ways and will stop hating us and stop trying to impose Islam on us, the French will finally be our equals, and everyone will be happy in the new Americanless utopia.

I believe the World Trade Center attack says less about American "in your face" wealth than about the complete and utter failure of socialism that breeds these maniacal losers.

Posted by: D2D at July 18, 2003 at 07:36 PM


>> "I believe the World Trade Center attack says less about American "in your face" wealth than about the complete and utter failure of socialism that breeds these maniacal losers."

I agree.

But am I allowed to agree with you, and yet still point out that I think Linklater got it wrong?

(Some posters here think not.)

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 18, 2003 at 07:59 PM

Ram, anyone who wants to see you blaming victims needs only look at the first post you made in this thread.

Screaming "Prove the Emperor isn't wearing clothes!" doesn't work when the Emperor is standing up there naked as a jaybird.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at July 18, 2003 at 11:54 PM


From my first post:

>> "Erm... I'm not saying I agree with the French dude either, all I'm saying is that Magnus Linklater has drawn the wrong conclusion."

Posted by: Big Ramifications at July 21, 2003 at 07:51 PM

Thank you for proving my point, Big.

"Can't you see that I CLEARLY SAID that I wasn't blaming the victim?"

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at July 22, 2003 at 03:42 PM