FHOP--Flaming House of Pancakes!

Realizing that many of the folks in this discussion were not here when Fred's opened its doors for business, I'll offer a brief snippet of history:

People being people, a lot of political or otherwise not-car subjects were coming up in the main forum. Some folks felt that the spirit of free speech was better served by allowing such discussion, while other folks felt that this is a Prius site and should be limited to matters relating to the Prius, or at least cars in general.

At that point someone suggested an off-topic forum, where any subject could be discussed. People who didn't want to read or participate in off-topic discussions could just stay out of Fred's (the whimsical name came out of a what-shall-we-call-it discusson - everybody agreed that "Off-Topic" was much too dull a name). This seemed to solve the problem nicely.

Now some folks seem to use the List New Posts link rather than opening individual forums, and that makes it hard to avoid any particular forum.

I never use that link. I open specific forums and look for topic titles of interest or OP's I find interesting. I often skip OP's who, in my experience, tend to post stuff that does not interest me. And I only ever open 2 or 3 of the forums, because I don't want to take the time to read everything posted here, and one way to limit my time online is to choose which general subject matters to get involved in. So, for example, I never look at the mileage forum.

Anyway, Freds served, and still serves, a useful purpose: Since you cannot ban all off-topic discussion, you create a place for it where people can find it or avoid it, as they choose.

 

Xenophobia rules.

 

2. I'm not interested in the identity of any individual who may have sent the e-mail. I'm only interested if it was distributed by an organization.

Neither link in godiva's post leads to an answer to my questions. We still don't know who it is who editorialized, for example, that Hanson is "brilliant", or that all of the conference attendees agreed with Lamm (as indicated, only as far as we know, by their silence? Could it have been their boredom?)

4. Who is posing a "risk to the nation" by "promoting...bilingualism or multilingualism..." if you yourself acknowledge that you know of no one who has proposed that the US become officially bilingual or multi-lingual? Who, exactly, is promoting it "over" unity?

Other bilingual/multi-lingual countries: India, Belgium, Switzerland, Indonesia. Don't know about South American countries yet---will look it up.

" But I would also like to point out that neither Lamm or myself has said that just because the USA contains bilingual and multicultural peoples that it is bad."

This seems contradictory to your whole point. What IS bad, then?

"Good grief what a silly assumption on your part!" I made no assumptions, silly or otherwise. That's exactly why I ASKED.

5. You now apparently admit that Lamm did not advocate raising the educational level of immigrants (at taxpayer expense, of course). Why might it be unreasonable to think that he doesn't? Because, Wildkow, his topic is "the destruction of America", a Doomsday Scenario if there is such a thing. It is just as reasonable to think that his answer is to shut off immigration to all who can't speak English.

I think 6, 7 and 8 are pertinent to the context in which Lamm spoke. If you don't, fine.

I am not attacking you. I'm challenging what you've posted and said yourself, in a civil manner. Sounds like you've boned up on a little "victimology" yourself.

Doomsday Scenarios are a dime a dozen. Practical alternative courses of action aren't.

I oppose illegal immigration. I wish the President and the majority party in both houses of Congress did, too.