tarquin wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
America fears that the ICC will do X, Y and Z.
Supporters of the ICC call these things unlikely or impossible.
(Or something like that.)
What you said about the "appearance of a troll" has, itself, the
appearance of a personal attack. But I don't mind. It reminds me
about [[Sam Gamgee]]'s amusing poem from The Lord of the Rings.
(Although I confess I am a bit worried about going outside my cave
during daylight: I might turn into stone :-)
Ed, it was the way you said "kangaroo court" that seemed trollish.
Reading tonight's version of the ICC article, I can see that (to
summarize very broadly), US opponents feel that the ICC is a "damned
if we do, damned if we don't" sort of setup, since it would be the US
doing the actual dirty work of dragging out any dictators.
I don't necessarily agree (it still smacks of imperialism as an
argument - the shark saying "why should I take part in the minnows'
parliament?"), but it is clearly put, and the article is much
improved. :-)
Personal attack would be if I called a person a troll, but not a
specific action as has been the case. I do have strong opinions on
these matters, but for the most part I am content not to push these
"interesting but dangerous" matters. However, sometimes when an
otherwise respected Wikipedian takes an outrageous position, it's hard
not to reply. Rick Wilson's babblings didn't make enough sense to merit
any response at all. It seems that whenever brings this stuff to the
attention of the list it starts a whole new uproar.
I'll try to find time to look more closely at the ICC article, but in
the middle of tax accounting work (the Canadian season runs to April 30)
I need to pay a little more attention to work. To continue the analogy
started by Ed, looking back too seriously on this recent ICC debate
could turn some of us into pillars of salt.
Ec