"Emery Davis" wrote in message .....

> Well, I'll just say one more this about that...

Likewise, this will be my final word, because this is getting further OT
with every contribution.

> I respond because I think the logic touches on why the
> original statement would be offensive to some.
> In any international or multicultural group norms of politeness
> dictate avoiding offense to group members.


I cannot totally agree, Emery.

I can not envisage any occasion where I would not take advantage of any
opportunity to pass some pointed, even ridiculing comment about any subject,
purely out of politeness.

One might say that I enjoy "Taking the ****!!!"

I would consider it a waste of a good day, when I did not make my fellow man
*think* by challenging a norm or convention or pointing out idiotic thinking
or actions of some sort.

Now, I am not saying that I am the best equipped to do this, in fact, far
from it, but, provided I have the time or inclination, I will never let a
chance go by.

I was once told "You should never discuss religion or politics" - but I
believe that if we chose *not* to discuss religion or politics or abortion
or racism or homosexuality or female circumcision or global warming or
global trade - then in fact, we fall into the trap of letting others
discuss these matters behind closed doors - and make decisions in secret
which will affect each and every one of us - while we remain as cattle or
sheep.

And I take the point(s) made - a.f.w. is a wine forum and all references to
*controversial* or *sensitive* subjects have no place here.

But, where does *relevance* start and finish.

If the current rate of climate change endangers low lying vineyards in (say)
Marlborough, is that relevant to the US failing to ratify the Kyoto
Agreement?

Could or should this be a topic of discussion?

Are EU *restrictions* on imports because of petty labelling issues any more
or less than "Trade Sanctions" by another name?

Should this also be discussed? Surely, the more enlightened that we, as
members of the general populace, are, then the more that we *can* influence
decision makers.

Should I stop making any reference to, the position "If you are not for us,
you are against us" when a US correspondent bleats about having their
corkscrew confiscated at LAX or JFK?

A couple of years ago there was quite a discussion of issues surrounding the
use of questionable labour practices in vineyards in Chile?

I do have a very broad general knowledge and awareness of issues in most of
the world; and whereas wine is a hobby and passion, I am not going to lock
myself away and pretend that issues just don't exist.

So, if I can see a humorous side to a discussion, I will contribute in my
own irreverent fashion.

Equally, if someone holds themselves up for ridicule, I will not let them
down.

And if my pointing out *a few home truths* upsets a few people, then that is
OK with me too.

You see, I truly value freedom - and I am lucky to live on one of the freest
countries on Earth.

And I know that I will upset a few of my American *friends* when I say,
looking from the outside, I can see the freedoms that you all hold so dear,
being taken from you forever, unless you start discussing ways that the US
can become *part* of the world community and not master of it.

--

st.helier