The politician within UNICON

Mr. President, rather than waste bandwidth responding to the myriad absurdities
and misconceptions contained in your recent response, I’ll just make a few
short comments and leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word. :wink:

First, none of this was a political issue until you, el presidente, went to
great lengths to build it into one. In typical grandiose political fashion, you
took a relatively harmless and insignificant incident and blew it out of all
proportion. Why? I don’t know, nor will I speculate. I just ask that you cease
and desist from making it an issue any longer so the NG can return to the topic
of unicycling. Just because it’s your pet peeve, doesn’t mean everyone else is
concerned. Was it in bad taste, perhaps, but then so are plaids and prints when
mixed. No big deal.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus
clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
M.s. Mencken

Second, if you are sincere when you say you don’t want rules that limit the
expression of members within the context of the sport, then it’s a simple matter
of not proposing or supporting any. Take off the politician hat and put on your
unicycle helmet. It’s that simple. Quite plainly, there is no real problem with
regard to how participants conduct themselves which needs to be addressed. The
IUF and UNICON are NOT bordering on bedlam or total chaos. Nor are they
particularly anarchistic. I should know, I’m an anarchist. Though I don’t
usually make an issue of that fact. I’m hoping you’re wise enough you won’t
either. :wink:

Third, it’s a bad idea to lecture on subjects you have no real working or first
hand knowledge of, like free speech, or freedom generally. It just makes you
appear foolish. Freedom isn’t anything like what you or most americans think.
What you and most americans accept is “freedom on a leash.” Real freedom is
self-control, no more, no less. Stick to the subject of unicycling, at least
then you can speak from genuine personal experience.

Returning to the tranquility of lurk mode . . .

    peace - AU

Freeom on a leash - http://www.hevanet.com/kort/LEASH1.HTM

ps: Not only can you yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, I’ve seen it done. I
watched Penn, of Penn and Teller, do just that with a sold-out house at the
Warner Theatre less than a year ago. Penn even quiped, “God, I’ve always
wanted to do that.” Penn also rides unicycles. :wink:

Re: The politician within UNICON

Well said, Greg! John freely gives an amazing amount of time and energy to
advancing unicycling here and abroad, and ad hominem attacks reveal a lack of
appreciation and class.

Arthur Doerksen

“Greg House” <ghouse@southwind.net> wrote in message
news:968084691.659612926@news.onemain.com
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2000, Cre9ive@aol.com wrote:
> >Mr. President, rather than waste bandwidth responding to the myriad
> > absurdities and misconceptions contained in your recent response, I’ll
just
> >make a few short comments and leave it at that. Feel free to have the
last
> >word. :wink:
>
> Whether John responds or not, I find it hard to read this kind of a post
> without responding myself. I have not responded to any of the previous
posts
> because I am not an IUF member and was not involved with UniconX, but it
> irritates me to see someone abused in this manner, especially when his
> responses have been well reasoned and gratious.
>
> There was absolutely nothing in his post concerning this issue which was
> “absurd” or “misconceived”. There is no cause for you to use derisive
language
> to make your point. I suggest you refrain from the personal attacks, it
would
> serve your side of the argument much better.
>
> >First, none of this was a political issue until you, el presidente, went
to
> >great lengths to build it into one. In typical grandiose political
fashion,
> >you took a relatively harmless and insignificant incident and blew it out
of
> >all proportion.
>
> This is a ridiculous statement. The act of raising a banner decrying a
> political situation can be considered nothing BUT political. Whether you
AGREE
> with the sentiment expressed or not, if it has to do with the interaction
of
> two countries, it is by definition POLITICAL.
>
> Personally, I agree with the Puerto Rican’s cause. The United States has
> absolutely no business using their country as a weapons test facility.
This
> type action reminds me of the Biblical story the prophet Nathan told Kind
David
> to convict him of the injustice of something he’d done, a poor man had
only one
> sheep, a rich man lived nearby - who owned huge flocks of sheep. The rich
man
> wanted to have a celebration, so he went and stole the poor man’s only
sheep.
> Absolutely and total injustice.
>
> BUT…this is the interaction of two countries and it IS a POLITICAL
> interaction. That is what the word means. You can’t deny what it is just
> because you agree with the statement.
>
> >Why? I don’t know, nor will I speculate. I just ask that you cease and desist
> >from making it an issue any longer so the NG can return
to
> >the topic of unicycling. Just because it’s your pet peeve, doesn’t mean
> >everyone else is concerned. Was it in bad taste, perhaps, but then so are
> >plaids and prints when mixed. No big deal.
>
> John has clearly stated his valid concerns about making political
statements a
> part of IUF events. I agree, it is not the arena to present this type
thing.
> Just as I should not ride in with a banner saying “Free Tibet” or "Save
the
> Whales". Even if I believed strongly in these things, it’s the wrong forum
to
> present them.
>
> >"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and
> >thus clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series
> >of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
> > H.L. Mencken
>
> This quote is entirely misdirected. John is trying to protect the
organization
> and the hosts. If politics come into the events, the countries willing to
host
> them may incrementally decline. Just because nobody at the event
complained
> doesn’t mean that there wasn’t anyone who thought the action was
questionable.
>
> >Third, it’s a bad idea to lecture on subjects you have no real working or
> >first hand knowledge of, like free speech, or freedom generally. It just
> >makes you appear foolish. Freedom isn’t anything like what you or most
> >americans think. What you and most americans accept is "freedom on a
leash."
> >Real freedom is self-control, no more, no less. Stick to the subject of
> >unicycling, at least then you can speak from genuine personal experience.
>
> This isn’t about freedom, free speech, or free press. This is about what
is
> appropriate at a unicycling event. I believe this should be decided by the
> organizers of the event, and those in authority over the organization.
That is
> John’s elected position and it is correct for him to take this sort of
action.
>
> From the messages I have read, it is not John Foss who is blowing the
> situation out of proportion, it is you.
>
> Greg