Succeed, Fail or What?

It's not really that the remark is foolish so much as redundant and obvious. I'm not sure how it ties into your point about siding with the US, or how either of those things illuminates what I think is your ultimate point about the middle ground between success (however that may be defined) and failure (however that may be defined).

My reading of this piece leaves me wanting more information about how you perceive the middle ground -- what you think it is; and why, perhaps, the reality and acceptability of it is not more widely spoken of. I think this material is important enough to address in more depth -- this particular piece is too much on the surface, I think, and rather incoherent.

This is not meant to be critical of you as a person: I work as a freelance editor, and am always, perhaps unwarrantedly, interested in helping people to improve their writing.

thanks for sharing your writings with us.

Hm, I remember being at a summer place in Michigan when Bush I nominated Dan Quayle. Being at the time from Indiana, the first thought was -- you gotta be kidding, who did that screening. The next thought was, well at least that means we get to improve our representation in the Senate. Dan Quayle got launched into Hoosier politics for two reasons: first he looked like Robert Redford, and secondly his family owned the dominant newspaper chain. I remember when we were trying to get assistance on various municipal problems and issues that we had to go around Quayle's office and work through Lugar's Office and with Dan Coats. The problem with Quayle wasn't so much that he was stupid, we have a lot of stupid politicians, the problem was that he surrounded himself with people who were even more stupid than himself. I remember one of his classic moves was to send a brag sheet out to every banker over his pushing through a witholding tax on savings account interest -- he actually thought the bankers would approve of the idea. He was the classic, pretty face empty head and fortunately Bush I did not get assassinated in office.

David, perhaps as an editor you seek to find an objective or purpose in a piece of writing. Mine is to prompt people to think about the subject. I do not intend ever to glide a reader along one line of argument to a clear conclusion, but to shake him up enough to consider the possiblities surrounding it. I provide the field, you decide what you want to play there.

Thank you Stephanie. It was kind of you to leave that note of appreciation.

George, I was not praising Dan Quayle, of course. However, it's not fair to take the words of a politician out of context to hurt him either. Nor is it fair to take anyone's words out of context and use them to destroy the reputation of another, something which is has been done far too frequently lately.
As I am not American, I do not feel qualified to pass judgment on any US politician because many of them don't make sense to me. They all seem to believe the world is black and white, good or evil, "with us or with the terrorists."

"David, perhaps as an editor you seek to find an objective or purpose in a piece of writing." You can play soccer, or American football, or cricket, or, best of all, hide-and-seek on Bill's playing field.

BIG mistake in trying "to find an objective or purpose" in a piece of Bill Allin's writing David. You see, you can play soccer, or American football, or cricket, or, probably most fittingly, hide-and-seek on Bill's playing field. However diligently you may seek real meaning here, it is so cunningly secreted you will inevitably be disappointed.

YES, NO, OR MAYBE? Bill, good old buddy, Dan Q. is one of perhaps two people I have encountered whose opinions and public statements are so completely buffonish as to qualify him for official designation as a certified court jester. (I expect you can guess who the other one might be.)

Military supremacy does not, indeed, guarantee"succes", I suppose, depending upon exactly what your definition is of "success"--which you pointedly neglect, or avoid, mentioning here (unless, of course, you really DO believe that success="superior", which, likewise remains undefined.)

I wonder if you might be willing to acknowledge that OUR country HAS, in fact, been "successful" by other measures than military superiority? (If you have doubts about THAT contention you might want to ask the "former" Soviet Union what they think.)

Perhaps, you might argue, "success" consists in mere survival. For a vulture, say, perhaps it does. Perhaps, too, to those of you who occupy the "middle ground" mediocrity=success, in which case, you, Bill, can justifiably back up your own personal claim to success as, what, an authority on goodness, wisdom and recitude?

And yes, David, as you note so perceptively, Bill's personal motto, if he were so bold as to state it in unequivocal terms would no doubt be: "Superficiality, and incoherence is us--or me."

Paul..........perhaps you would be better off writing your pieces about these subjects so we can compare & equate them?

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
It reminds me of a quote a friend used to say when ever someone hurt themself.
"It will feel better when it stops hurting."

Again, Bill, let me assure you that Paul G's comments are good for this community, and although you may disagree with his comments does not justify him being banned from Gather. Free Speech. I don't understand your rationale how you possibly could construe Paul's comments as stalking. I had just finished writing an article on OJ. Now OJ was a stalker. Bill, you had recently posted an article here:
"Some People Just Plain Shouldn't Matter to You" Well, practice this regarding Paul. Why should he matter to you? You know the old adage, "Practice what you preach," right. Well? So what if Paul G. disagrees with you, it is his right. Just as it is yours to disagree with him. In which I feel you do more often than not. So what, who cares. I find the both of you to be intelligent whose views may be polarized but the both of you offer value to this community. We, the readers, are also intelligent and it is our right to see both views, and although, they may be polar opposites, so what, let us decide. I am actually getting a kick out of this "back and forth" between you two....If you allow yourself the chance, Paul G. really is a highly intelligent citizen here and has a great perspective on things. Well, so do you. Now, what's the problem? There isn't a problem. Don't make it a problem. Bill, everybody doesn't have to agree with you. You know I wrote something not so long ago: "Of course I wouldn't want everybody to be like me. If they were I would never get my car fixed. Or get that frontal lobotomy I so desperately need. Hell, I wouldn't ever get to Hawaii again either. I don't know how to fly planes or pilot canoes." Simple thought but so very true. You, too, shouldn't expect everybody to be molded by your thoughts, viewpoints and writings. It doesn't work that way. It mustn't work that way. I don't need to get into politics here but take a second and rethink your position. Again, Paul has the right to voice his opinion on any subject, article or person here on Gather as he does on the outside. Free speech. Harmless, and again, there is no stalking here. . . No need to start getting paranoid. If you truly believe in your life's work then it shouldn't matter if others differ with you....I, too, have many ideas, thoughts, views, beliefs and as far as I am concerned none of them are written in stone nor would I want them to be. I, like you, don't have all the answers to the world's problems, never did, never will. I don't expect everybody to agree with me nor would I want that, Bill. God forbid! All I can do is take from my personal experiences and observations the thoughts that I sometimes lay on the table. Take it or leave it.

Ricky, as you went public by publishing your comment as an article, I will not comment other than to say that nothing you wrote in your comment or article would I disagree with, but you don't know all the facts, or even a few of them. On principle, you are correct. However, principles can be abused, which is what Paul has done.
I invite you to read all of my articles over the past month, plus the comments that follow them, then see how your principle holds up to close examination of excesses.

Bill, even if Paul G's comments are excessive it shouldn't matter - remember, they're just comments... You should just skip right over them if they bother you so much. And your readers can do the same if they so do choose.... An open forum, let it stand. Your articles are in the public domain. Writings that you do not want to be commented on, a few words of advice: "Don't publish them." Anything published is open to review, criticism, conversation etc. Just as the book you had published. Some may agree with it, some may not but because of differences in opinion, should the book be banned. Think hard about it. Do you see my point? Bill, you're a good guy, right? You believe in the common good, am I right? Well, okay then... And where's your sense of humor. You know if I were you, I'd write a humor piece on this imbroglio. As a matter of fact I think I will.... it will actually make a great comedy sketch. Not to be mean or anything but sometimes humor is the best medicine. Maybe you've been taking things much too seriously. Step back a bit, lighten up, it's going to be ok. Have a great weekend!

Thanks for your thoughts Ricky.
Paul's comments don't bother me. I think it's kind of interesting that he devotes so much time to me. I am the only Gather member to whom he has a subscription--his other subscriptions are to groups. How's that for being a fan?
What bothers me is the fact that my readers feel hurt by his attacks. I take a special interest when others are hurt on my account.
Several readers have stopped commenting because they are afraid of him. They lose out on whatever discussions follow my articles, which even I will admit are sometimes more interesting than the articles themselves.
I may feign personal hurt to get attention from some people who would not give the problem a thought otherwise. Some people (such as the Gather board) won't budge unless there is blood on the sidewalk.

Bill, your article promoted a deep thought. If we're not at the top or the bottom, we are in the middle. Most people don't enjoy that position. To me, dear friend, it would imply that one does not have the ability to make a decision, therefore, they remain in the middle. I think I have to disagree with you on that. Almost everyone has opinion and a level of expertise.

How do you measure success or failure? By votes, or number of friends, or your bank statement? The size of your family or the cost of your home?

My father-in-law set his standard on money by assessing that if he didn't have at least $2000 in his checking account at all times, he was broke. He graduated from college and worked one job all his life. He raised 5 children, vacationed as a family all over the U. S. once a year. Owned his own home. His wife never had to work outside the home. Success? Failure?

My uncle made the Who's Who in America when he was 26. His fame came from being the youngest self made millionaire by the age of 24. He could add 6 figure numbers in his head faster than a calculator. His local bank would occasionally seek Him out for a loan. Success? Failure? Middle of the line?

So, Bill, you see my dilemma? How do you know where you stand? What it all boils down to is where you set your standards. Draw your lines. Balance input against outgo.

Thank you.

P.S. Ignore Paul, he is probably trying to get attention for a new book or something. lol

Foxy, what you infer and what I imply are different.
My purpose was to prompt people to think about the subject. Many did.
If I had an objective beyond prompting thought, it was to suggest that a person is not necessarily a failure because others do not define him or her as a success.
To be in the middle does not mean that a person is incapable of making a decision. That doesn't follow from anything I said, nor should it follow from any definition of success or failure.
If you have a dilemma, you and thinking about the subject. We each must draw our own lines, as you said. Then we must stand by the lines we have drawn.
Thank you for your thoughts.