Terminalcoffee discussion

According to The Guardian on Sept. 13, 2013, "North Korea appears to have restarted a reactor capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, according to analysis of satellite imagery and a US official."

"Andre Lankov, of Kookmin University in Seoul, said: 'If the US behaves as if North Korea does not exist, they will become even more of a problem. Neglect, also known as strategic patience, is not, on balance, a bad approach, but cannot be sustained for a long time.

'The North Koreans won't just sit and beg or enjoy visits from eccentric basketball players. They are going to develop their nuclear capabilities.'"

Well ain't that a cheery note. Plutonium, all because they think the US doesn't believe they exist? Nor should they sit and beg for visits from overpaid celebs. Can't fault them there.

Just a side note:
I wish the news agencies and everybody else would not refer to them as "The North Koreans" or make generalizations by calling them "they".
The majority of the North Korean people are afflicted by famine and live in constant fear of them and their families being incarcerated in prison camps, tortured or executed for purely arbitrary reasons. Those people have not restarted the reactor, nor are they developing their nuclear capabilities. They are too busy just staying alive.

So please refer to the people in charge as "the North Korean regime" or "Kim Jong-un and his minions" or whichever term distinguishes them from the unprivileged population.

Martini you blow me away with your knowledge of North Korea.

Aaron, I think you totally missed the point of what I was saying.

And you think this based on what? That I didn't give a paragraph reply? I got your point, Martini. Never accuse me of missing the point unless I've earned it.

::Facepalm::

Based on not commenting on the content, but with a sarcastic reply to whatever fretted you.

But keep on facepalming, it might help.

I wasn't being sarcastic. And why do you use big words like 'fretted'? Trying to come off as impressive and academic? It doesn't look good on you.

Besides, today is my birthday. I have no time for trivial conversing.

No, of course you were not being sarcastic, I can totally believe that.*)

If a non-native English speaker like me comes off as impressive or academic to a native speaker like you by using "big words", there seems to be something wrong. Should I have used a phrase like "offended", "angered" or "pxxxxd you off" instead?
Please, advise me.*)

Oh, and if you haven't got the time for a trivial conversation, then don't start one.
Happy Birthday.*)



*)That was sarcastic, in case you were wondering.

Hi. I'm wearing my moderator hat, which I haven't had to put on for a while.
Aaron, your comments in this thread come across as insulting to Martini, and I don't see that Martini has done anything to earn the insults. Please play nice. Consider this a warning.

@Martini

I apologize. I spoke out of turn. You have a great vocabulary and that's excellent. I should have commented on the comment, as you said.

Again, sorry I jumped the gun, Martini. No hard feelings?

@Sarah

I agree, they were insulting and I was wrong. It will not happen again, Sarah. I'll take others into consideration before I misconstrue what they're saying.

Guess I needed a wake up call.

Am I missing the point? Aaron's comment in msg4 didn't come across as sarcastic at all. I thought it was Martini who started being defensive & rude.

I'm staying neutral on this one.

Probably best.

Hi Gail!
It is possible that I should have spread out my warning over both of them, but to me it still reads as if Aaron made the jump from sarcasm to personally insulting.

As we both know from rugby, an official sometimes makes a questionable call, even when everybody can see what happened on the big screen. I just wanted to put a stop to the argy-bargy. Speaking of which, DID YOU SEE THE REFEREEING TRAVESTY ON SATURDAY? Argh.

Is there a rugby thread?

Scout wrote: "Is there a rugby thread?"

Yes! I haven't dragged it out in a while. Gail, if you want to talk refereeing travesties we can go over there.

I was wrong to think Obama's patient. He's making our country vulnerable with his immigration policies, leniency toward terrorists, and weak foreign policy. If you personally want to destroy yourself and your family, take in more people than you can support, then trust people who will kill you when you turn your back, and then let everyone in the neighborhood know that you're a wuss who won't defend yourself at any cost. Stupid.

What's Obama about? I don't really know. Seems like he's not all that upset about Muslim terrorists - more upset that people have access to firearms. I'll be really upset if he figures out a way to take away my means of defense. Terrorists and criminals will always have access to weapons.

Oh my. I nearly forgot about Aaron. What a dick.

Yes, too patient, too weak. Lofty ideals are wonderful in the abstract, but when you're dealing with countries that would like to see the U S fail, you have to meet them head on and not back down. Obama avoids confrontation at all costs because he doesn't want to leave a legacy of starting another war. The next president will have to deal with the consequences of his weakness. He'll be playing golf.