Well, Niles, I for one do believe what you say about your association with George. I am curious about what you think and what observations you said you would have made had you been here last fall for our "intese" conversations with George. We have the opinions of the aristocracy, their help, and we lowly proletareans, what is yours?

And just for my own curiosity sake, what did George have to say about this wonderful website?

Thank You, Misty

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), December 14, 1998

Answers

Misty,

Well, I guess I'd be one of the "lowly proletarians." The strange thing is, George has never seemed condescending to me and has certainly never seemed like he thinks I'm lowly. Actually, him and those like him are pretty pleasent and kind people. They're just REALLY protective of themselves, their society, and their (gulp) rules of propriety and etiquette.

I don't know - I don't exactly practise all those rules (although I try to be a good and moral person). I believe in manners and all, I just don't go to the extent that they do. If you want my opinions on everything said, I'd have to write a huge amount. I guess I can tell you what I think on some of the things said.

For one, I stick true to the fact that I didn't like "Titanic," and not just for the historical errors. I don't want to talk too much about this and I CERTAINLY don't want to get into a debate, but I thought it was pretty cheezy, chintzy, and contrived. I'll agree to disagree with the others here on that.

I don't hold George's views about women. I think they should be allowed to vote and have most jobs. But, (and I'm not sure why), I just don't think women should be combat troops in the army. I'm a somewhat conservative person, but again not to the extent of the aristocracy.

Although it took me a while, I read the entire argument (all four threads) between you, the others, and George. The one thing said that I really didn't like was about the Irish Potato Famine. Someone asked what caused it, and Jonathan Williams (he really IS George's valet) said that it was a parasitic fungus. After that, people jumped on him for saying so. Anyone who doesn't believe that a parasitic fungus destroyed the Irish potato crop in the 1840's and thinks it was some sort of vast British or American conspiracy is just WRONG. I did a school term paper on it, and any other "explanation" is just paranoia.

About the debate - you guys weren't very fair to George. He never insulted you (I'm speaking to everyone here, and not just Misty, who was kinder than most), but you persisted in insulting and belittling him. I know him better than most people who aren't "aristocrats," and I know that he's really a nice guy. He is, though, (along with all the other kids like him - they outnumber commoners at school) much different from a "normal" kid. It's really hard to explain. I've never spent any time with George outside of our somewhat brief discussions at school. Of course, I try to be very polite and on my best manners around him, but he just isn't like most kids his age. I guess it doesn't really matter. He's a very good debator - I'll admit that (he's one of our school's best).

What did George have to say about this website? Well, nothing about this particular website so much as the world wide web itself. He has told me the story of what went on, and then told me his opinion of the perils of the web. The only thing he said about this website is that, "although it is well organised, its content doesn't display a good degree of decency." That's all I can really recall. I hope this answered all your questions. I won't be able to be on the internet much this week, as I have to study for semester finals.

Niles M. Gregory

Tarrytown, NY

-- Niles M. Gregory (foo@bar.com), December 14, 1998.

Hello Niles,

Thank you for your input. I really appreciate being able to learn about how people with different backgrounds respond to different situations. I was smply curious about George and his lifestyle, and I don't believe I was rude until he began airing his "views" on the Native Americans, women's rights, and every other minority group he managed to insult. I wouldn't have had such a problem with his opinions, if he had been able to back them up in some manner. I am a firm believer in fact over opinion and I have a difficult time accepting peoples opinions when they have no basis behind them. If he could have told me that he didn't believe in woman's rights because when he went to Mars, the man in the moon told him all women were ignorant and needed a man to support them, then at least he would have had a reason. Not a very good reason, but a reason none the less. I think it is best for all people, not just proletareans, aristocrats or any other group, to form their own opinions from their own experiences, and not just believe it because daddy said so. I guess I am guilty of trying to make him think, and question everything he centered his life around. I just feel that everyone should be willing to question their own positions on matters once in a while. That is the only way you will know if what you are and what you are doing is truly making you happy, and isn't happiness the goal?

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), December 14, 1998.

By the way, Niles, good luck on your finals. I understand the time and effort it takes, because I had mine last week, so don't feel obligated to answer unless you have the time.

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), December 14, 1998.

Misty,

Well, I see what you're saying. But, after reading all four threads of discussion and debate, I don't see that George didn't support his views. In fact, if you'll read back over the whole thing, he stated supportive evidence for nearly everything he said. I just think that you and most of the others in the debate chose to IGNORE that evidence. I'm going to illustrate one example of this, but don't take my illustration as meaning that I hold the same belief (because I don't).

You mentioned women's rights. Pertaining to women voting, he showed several examples. Point 1: we are not an androgynous species; thus, our duties should not reflect androgyny (simple parallel construction - George and I have been in the same debate class together). Point 2: more women voted for Clinton in '92 than men; Clinton is an immoral person (I think we'll all agree); women were therefore responsible for a very bad choice of President. You see? He DID support his opinions.

He especially gave reasons when talking about Native Americans. Look back over the text. Do you see all that stuff about civilisation, barbarians, and empires? I'll do the same thing that I did before (again - don't think I hold the same opinion). Point 1: Native Americans were uncivilised (it's true - every anthropology textbook says so); uncivilisation is the same as barbarism (dictionary); history has shown that barbarians can't be trusted (Julius Caesar); thus, we shouldn't listen to Native American metaphors. See? Again, he did support his opinion.

I bet you don't like me defending him. I can't help it - he's really a very nice guy, and I don't like people railing on him when he wasn't mean to them. At the end of the debate, someone named Bethany asked, "Why is it that most of the contributors of this board seemed to try so hard to convince George to see and accept a perspective different from his own while refusing to allow him the same courtesy?" I think this is a very valid question.

Niles

Tarrytown, NY

-- Niles M. Gregory (foo@bar.com), December 15, 1998.

Hi Niles,

I understood what he was saying when he was defending is positions, but I guess I just question more what people consider to be facts. Yes, I agree that Clinton is an immoral person when considering his bedroom habits, but that doesn't mean he is a bad president, just a bad husband. As far as the rest of his life, I don't know, because I have never met him. (Of course, my own personal opinions may not agree with my arguments)

As far as the Native Americans go, I guess I should be arguing with anthropology books, because I do not hold the same opinion that they were uncivilized. According to the dictionary civilized means educated or enlightened. They were considered uncivilized simply because they did not have the education that was considered "desirable". If a group of people are able to thrive and survive on their own, they are as civilized as they need to be. When you take into consideration the fact that the first immigrants would never have survived without the help and enlightenment of the Native Americans, it follows that perhaps the Immigrants were uncivilized.

I am not saying that his arguments are not valid. I just wanted him to see and understand that there are different points of view and different perspectives to everything. There is information that we take for granted as being fact. The world being flat, the earth being in the center of the universe, etc. Just because it is a widely popular idea or notion doesn't mean it is beyond repproach. I never expected George to accept a perspective different than his own, but there is nothing wrong with trying to see it. Being able to accept other peoples opinions, especially when you don't agree with them, is one of the signs of a mature thinker.

-- Misty (HiRver@concentric.net), December 15, 1998.

Misty,

I don't want to get into an argument over Clinton, but I disagree with you. Lying to a grand jury, lying under oath, and lying to Congress are more than "bad bedroom habits." They're against the law. Well, whatever - I'll agree to disagree.

I also don't want to defend George's views or anything, but that info about the Native Americans isn't exactly correct. "Educated or enlightened" is one definition of civilisation, but there are others. I think somewhere George talked about the five points of civilisation: 1) a civilisation must have cities, 2) a civilisation must have specialised technologies to support those cities, 3) those cities must not have farming WITHIN the cities, 4) a civilisation must have a strict government with a code of laws, 5) a civilisation must include a bureaucracy. The Native Americans had none of these. There's nothing wrong with them (I don't agree at ALL with George), but they weren't a civilisation (even the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans don't fit this definition of civilisation). Otherwise, a group of people is nomadic and tribal. Actually, if you look back to the first western city in North America, St. Augustine, Florida, which was established by Spanish troops in 1518, they didn't require Native American aid to establish themselves. Again, I'm not supporting George's views - I'm just refuting some things. Then again, I'm not one to disagree with the point that the pilgrims at Plymough Rock were uncivilised.

I think (actually, I'm SURE) George knows that there are different points of view and different perspectives out there. I don't think he ever said there aren't (that would be like saying a mountain's not a mountain). I just don't think he agrees with them. And you know what? That's his right. For George and his ilk, though, propriety is different - you can question science and scientific facts (how else would the world change?), but you can't question etiquette. Well, whatever. Perhaps we shouldn't argue, because I'll keep defending George. He's really a nice guy.

Niles

Tarrytown, NY

-- Niles M. Gregory (foo@bar.com), December 16, 1998.

Go Niles! ( about the president ). I like the way you write things - very opinionated, yet thoughtful. Anyway, go Niles, go!

-- Kelly (foo@bar.com), December 16, 1998.

Come on, Niles, etiquette ("the forms prescribed by custom or authority to be observed in social, official, or professional life") too can be questioned. Maybe Miss Manners is that "authority" today, but that can change, as can "custom" (just not overnight); either just requires a challenge. Regarding the The Denver Post stiories on George, I made that up.

-- BobG (bobg@foo.bar), December 16, 1998.

Kelly,

Thanks a lot. (smiles)

BobG,

Sorry, I didn't word my sentence correctly. What I meant to say is that among the aristocracy, ONE may question science, but ONE may not question etiquette. Obviously, I don't follow this and I don't expect anyone else to. Sure, I believe in being polite, but I'm not one of the aristocrats (in fact, I'm curious about where I would fit in the "socio-economic ladder"). Also, you mentioned Miss Manners - George mentioned her; her real name is Judith Martin. Thanks for the info about the Denver Post stories.

Niles

Tarrytown, NY

-- Niles M. Gregory (foo@bar.com), December 17, 1998.