| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
no shock indeedno shock indeedPosted Nov 27, 2005 13:03 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: No Shock by b7j0c Parent article: Microsoft, the "Vienna Conclusions," and the UN World Summit (Heise Online) Actually, lifelong bureaucrats had nothing to do with the revision. There were several of them among the members of the panel; but those responsible for the evil substitution seem to be a member of a management board, a politician and an elected chancellor. So, a more accurate (but still biased) conclusion might be "This is what you get when you have a democratically elected body on top of a capitalistic system". So here's a third, more balanced opinion: "This is what you get when money talks". You should improve your reading and comprehension skills, if you get the chance: conclusions must be drawn from the text, not imprinted upon it.
(Log in to post comments)
actually... Posted Nov 27, 2005 13:21 UTC (Sun) by rmstar (guest, #3672) [Link] Actually, this is what you get when idealistic people have to deal withshrewd, very experienced politicians/lobyists. They have a bag of tricks this long, and are absolutely cold-bloded when it comes to applying them. Hey, it's their job, and they do it well. I bet what they did here is known as a long established technique with a name involving "classic". So what happened here was that the folks on our side were simply unexperienced and were ****ed like nobody's business. While they were trying to convince people with arguments, the others were just maneuvering. Incidentally, this is the same reason why free trade agreements between 1st and 3rd world countries always turn foul for the latter. The agreements are great in principle, and would probably work. But then when the details are negotiated, novice negotiators, or even experienced negotiators meet world class M.F. who do not think they've achieved anything if they haven't screwed you thrice over. That said, it is a very sad state of affairs. And everybody is right being angry at them and this outcome. I am.
actually... Posted Nov 27, 2005 19:25 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " So what happened here was that the folks on our side were simplyunexperienced and were ****ed like nobody's business " Ive read from a lot of places, and in different contexts, that when in politics something happens, it dosent happen by chance, but it was planned... "Our" side where already ****ed, even before they got there. There is a terrorist(guerrila) world wide war on OSS, giving all indications that the worst terrorists arent in some cave in some desert mountain, but sit at confortable offices, elected by "us", and empowered by "us".
SALE! -90%! three silver thingies. Posted Nov 27, 2005 21:29 UTC (Sun) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] well, that's Christian America. sad to see they've sold Him too, even if not for Ag$30.
(if you're going to get overly sad, come here to Russia or Ukraine: even if say Youshchenko turned out to be exactly the kind of bastards you describe ...heck, I voted for him too and now he's been asking his friend Gates for an advice on whom to approve as a minister of what-considers-IT-too here... -- there *are* still people here who actually *are* worth talking with and who just don't do this sort of screwer's business)
no shock indeed Posted Nov 28, 2005 7:46 UTC (Mon) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link] > You should improve your reading and comprehension skills,> if you get the chance: conclusions must be drawn from the text, not > imprinted upon it.
You cannot take the text out of the wider context without devastating
no shock indeed Posted Nov 28, 2005 9:45 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Care to elaborate? Which context is lost? Where do you see the "lifelong bureaucrats" or the people "unaccountable to an electorate" in the text, apart from the "UN" in the title?
|
|
||||||||||||