SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> It’s Here ! /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1605544516 Message started by MnSpring on 11/16/20 at 08:35:16

Title: It’s Here ! Post by MnSpring on 11/16/20 at 08:35:16 A-yep, C-19, Increased: Fear, Lock Downs, Control, Fabercrating numbers, etc. THEN, ‘announcement’ of a vaccine, ‘breakthrough’, LOLOLOLOL.   (By WHAT Company, Owned by WHO ????) All courtesy of the UL, DFI, FDS, Socialists, Who want EVERYBODY to pay for the FREE stuff,            (Except Them)

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Serowbot on 11/16/20 at 08:44:14 New plan? What happened to, November 4th it will all disappear?.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by MnSpring on 11/16/20 at 09:20:08 4056415C44515C47330 wrote: New plan? What happened to, November 4th it will all disappear?. Ya must have missed this post: Re: SARS-COV-2 national rates false. Reply #6 - Nov 13th, 2020, 7:32pm

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/16/20 at 18:40:27  I bet some bottle water company owns it.  No news about what company, just "vaccine" but no company names.  Pfizer was never mentioned for sure.  Besides nobody knows who owns Pfizer, and since it's just distilled water, and nobody can test it to make sure, its probably just some bottled water company.  Proof is that there is no more fear mongering.  No more Covid restrictions, reports of rising numbers, or even mask wearing.  It's all done now.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/16/20 at 21:59:59 I blame not only the DFI and FDS, but also the EFI, the WTF, FU2, Y2K, BBL, the M&M and finally AFK.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by ApacheChief on 11/17/20 at 00:56:54 I'm just confused now...

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by ApacheChief on 11/17/20 at 00:57:51 And wait, the most prolific commentator on this forum, more engaged in American politics than most 'muricans... is Australian??

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/17/20 at 13:05:52 And wait, the most prolific commentator on this forum, more engaged in American politics than most 'muricans... is Australian??  I wouldn't consider reading and watching YouTube about American Politics to meet my definition of "engaged" but yeah he is Australian and consistently comments here.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by verslagen1 on 11/17/20 at 14:56:39 Probably because he's banned in his own country.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/17/20 at 15:31:21 Oh look, darling little newbie with 9 posts starts trash talking, could this be WM setting up a new account before 'disappearing'? Prolly not. Not surprised to see Versy take the bait, but Eegore's post is doing exactly the type of crap he complains others do to him. Fancy that! There are few things more pathetic than entitled septics.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/17/20 at 16:08:23  Really?  You want to go back to finding offense in everything again?  Lets look at it this way: "And wait, the most prolific commentator on this forum, more engaged in American politics than most 'muricans... is Australian??"  "'muricans" is often slang for how ridiculous Americans are.  Proud for no good reason.  It is possible that ApacheChief is actually saying you're more educated to what's going on in American politics than your average bonehead American.  That is how I read his comment.  That you are more educated to American Politics than a number of Americans.  But instead lets start denigrating his assessment capabilities by somehow connecting his post count with his ability to be an intelligent human.  As if the two are in any way connected, or that seniority on this forum means anything at all.  As for my comment I was answering what I thought was an honest question as well as clarifying, very specifically "My", as in "My Own" or "Personal" definition of the word "engaged" and only the word engaged with the exemption of all other words, in context to American Politics. Engaged:  1. having formally agreed to marry: 2. involved in something: 3. busy doing something.  How exactly is any non-US citizen, not on US soil "involved in" American Politics?  If you are involved in any way other than personal research by means of reading and watching you have never said so.  How you even managed to find anything offensive by that I do not know.  I have said absolutely nothing derogatory about you in any way.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/17/20 at 19:05:37 Well then Eegore, just because you get your news and information from youtube, doesn't mean everyone else does. Also the 'dictionary game' is a bit trollish, wouldn't you say. Are you saying that I am engaged with us politics, or that I am not engaged with us politics, and how do you justify your answer. The point about post count matters when you start trash talking people, because you simply don't know. And yes I see your point that apache may have meant it differently to what I said, but then you and now versy these days and others like mn, and jog, have flung the pointless  abuse as if I have no right to comment. Also you surely cannot be oblivious as to the fcuked up effects that US foreign policy has in other countries?

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/17/20 at 20:23:16 "Well then Eegore, just because you get your news and information from youtube, doesn't mean everyone else does."  I would hope not.  I didn't say you "only" get your information from YouTube, an nobody here should assume I would mean that unless I specifically said you exclusively use YouTube as a primary means of information on American Politics.  It is merely a point of reference as you have utilized YouTube links in your posts.  To clarify I think you use YouTube to engage in discussion of American politics on this forum more than you use your personal activity in the US. "Also the 'dictionary game' is a bit trollish, wouldn't you say. Are you saying that I am engaged with us politics, or that I am not engaged with us politics, and how do you justify your answer. "  No, I think it is important to define what I am using to interpret the word "engaged" and only the word engaged in context to American Politics.  It's trollish if you are trying to find something offensive about the way somebody interprets a word in a sentence.  I very specifically made a point of using the words: "My" and "Definition" when I responded.  I did this for a very specific reason as I am using "my definition" and by clarifying that it allows for open discussion of varying opinion, unless of course being offended comes easier.  I feel you are not "engaged" and only the word engaged, by definition, as in "involved" in American politics.  I think you are engaged in the discussion of American Politics.  I do not think you are involved in American Politics. "The point about post count matters when you start trash talking people, because you simply don't know."  How do you know how many posts he has read here?  Theoretically he could have read posts dating prior to either of us being here.  I for one read over a year of posts from the TT before making a single post.  As for trash talking, that is your assumption, I clearly read it exactly the opposite.   "Also you surely cannot be oblivious as to the fcuked up effects that US foreign policy has in other countries?"  I never said anything like that.  We tried to have this discussion before and you outlined I was an "eel" for even trying to talk about it.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/17/20 at 20:46:13 It is merely a point of reference as you have utilized YouTube links in your posts. That's disingenuous as put links into all my news sources as you must know. To clarify I think you use YouTube to engage in discussion of American politics on this forum more than you use your personal activity in the US. Don't you think that's a rather pointless and meaningless thing to say seeing as you know I don't live there? And what pray tell does personal activity have to do with any event where ones personal activity is actually necessary. For example one does not need 'personal activity' in South Africa to make comments on apartheid. If however one was making those comments as personal experiences then that would be another matter. In fact trotting out the need of personal activity in a geographical position as having some automatic validation to speak of that area is trivial and specious. Seeing as more than 30 percent of US eligible voters do not vote, one could say that they have zero engagement in the political process not matter how long they've lived there. Not only that but the USA is a large country with different laws in various States and you could easily say that Californians are not engaged with NY other than by you tube. Same thing. We live in a global village. But forget all that, what is the point, you want to make about my "engagement" with US politics. No, I think it is important to define what I am using to interpret the word "engaged" and only the word engaged in context to American Politics. But that is my point, you didn't define what you meant. You just cut and pasted a dictionary definition, which contains words that need further definition. Engaged:  1. having formally agreed to marry: 2. involved in something: 3. busy doing something. For example the above. WTF is that supposed to mean, why talk about agreeing to marry? You have not defined what you mean, and as I said this is the same sort of bs that you complain that others do. Exactly the same, and you know it. I presume you expect me to fish out "2. Involved in something" as your definition of 'engaged' but then you'd need to define "involved". The fact is that cutting and pasting dictionary definitions is trolling because you know, we presume, exactly what you mean and you simply have to state that in plain English, unless you don't want to be pushed into admitting your talking nonsense and then falling back on smart assed dictionary definitions as if you've answered the question. Finally what exactly is the POINT you are making with your absurd statement I think you use YouTube to engage in discussion of American politics on this forum more than you use your personal activity in the US. Is there a point to it?

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/17/20 at 21:19:12 "That's disingenuous as put links into all my news sources as you must know."  Again: "I didn't say you "only" get your information from YouTube, an nobody here should assume I would mean that unless I specifically said you exclusively use YouTube as a primary means of information on American Politics."  I didn't go review your posts and create a spreadsheet to offer exact percentages of each reference you use and at what frequency.  Most people know what YouTube is so I used it as general reference.  Nobody has any reason to believe YouTube is your exclusive, primary, partially or any source at all based off of my comment. "Don't you think that's a rather pointless and meaningless thing to say seeing as you know I don't live there?"  No.  I think because you do not live in the US, and are not active in American Politics you do not meet my definition of being engaged in American politics.  I think you are engaged in the discussion of American Politics. "And what pray tell does personal activity have to do with any event where ones personal activity is actually necessary."  It is necessary in order to meet my definition of being "engaged" in something that one be involved directly by some medium other than observation and discussion with others that are also not involved in that topic.  Talking about something does not, by my definition, mean I am engaged in it.  I am engaged in the discussion of it. "For example one does not need 'personal activity' in South Africa to make comments on apartheid."  I never said anything close to this.  Making comments on apartheid does not meet my definition of being engaged in apartheid.  That would meet my definition of being engaged in the discussion of apartheid.   "In fact trotting out the need of personal activity in a geographical position as having some automatic validation to speak of that area is trivial and specious."  I never said anything about the "need" of any type of activity to speak about anything.  To speak about any topic would by my definition meet the definition of being engaged in the speaking of that topic.  It would not meet my definition of being engaged in that topic.  I very specifically said you are engaged in the discussion of American Politics.  You do not meet my definition of being engaged in American Politics.  Your geographical location has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to be engaged in the discussion of any other geographical location.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/17/20 at 21:24:26 Engaged:  1. having formally agreed to marry: 2. involved in something: 3. busy doing something. "For example the above. WTF is that supposed to mean, why talk about agreeing to marry? You have not defined what you mean, and as I said this is the same sort of bs that you complain that others do. Exactly the same, and you know it."  I very specifically utilized the second section in my explanation.  Was there any reason you needed further clarification than my using the exact words I referenced?  I can outline it better so nobody has to go fishing: "How exactly is any non-US citizen, not on US soil "involved in" American Politics?  If you are involved in any way other than personal research by means of reading and watching you have never said so."  For clarification I am using the second section of the definition I use.  Those words are "Involved" and "In".  When used together I mean to say that for one to be engaged in a topic one must be "involved in" the topic directly.  These two words are a direct usage of section two of the definition I provided.  All other sections besides the words "Involved" and "In" can be exempt from the application of "involved in" utilized in the sentence I provided.  Those sections are specific to the bold, underlined and red colored words.  Only those words are implemented in the follow-up sentence and as such all other words in the definition of "engaged" that is provided should not be taken into account.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/18/20 at 14:47:53 Was there any reason you needed further clarification than my using the exact words I referenced? Yes there was and still is, you need to define "involved" not by posting another smorgasbord of dictionary definition, but exactly what you meant by using the word, because on it's own it has a rather plastic definition. Using the word involved, as you have used it in this context is just a very peculiar word to use. Is there a point, that you're making? Maybe it would be simpler to state that point, if there is one.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/18/20 at 15:04:23  I feel this will just lead to another process of defining the words I used to define the first word but here it goes: Engaged = "involved in" Involved = actively participating in something  Is it necessary to explain "actively" and "participating"?  I do not think you are "involved in" American Politics, or actively participating, or engaged in them.  As in you are in the US, or communicating from a location outside the US with people who are in the US that are active in, participating in, conducting or otherwise engaging in American politics.    By my definition you are not engaged in, or to use other words that mean the same thing, to me, "involved in" or "actively participating" in  American Politics.  I think you are engaged, specifically in this forum, in the discussion of American politics.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/18/20 at 16:54:48 Is it necessary to explain "actively" and "participating"?, yes it is, and as I said which you keep ingenuously ignoring is that rather than define a word, define exactly what you mean, or even better, explain the point you were making. then it will be clear. "How exactly is any non-US citizen, not on US soil "involved in" American Politics? Ok so are you saying then by 'participating' then you mean actually voting? If not when what is the point you are making. I mean this is a political discussion forum where member's 'participate' in a discussion. I'm really at a loss to work out exactly what you are getting at. And your continued reluctance to simply tell me what it is that you are getting at makes me wonder what you expect me to infer. Perhaps that's it, perhaps you want me to infer something but you just don't want to say it. That way you can weasel out of it. Similar to what Trump does constantly. I think what irks me about your replies is that you do precisely the thing you complain WM and JoG do to you. Again, another trait of Trump.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/18/20 at 17:22:57  Ok lets define the words used to define the second set of words used to describe the first word.  Remember before you tell me this irks you, that you literally said I needed to do this. "Actively" I am considering in this context to be an adverb.  Doing something in a way that intends positive action.  An example is: With the aim of making something happen, rather than just hoping that it will. Participating I consider to mean: Take part in an action or endeavor.  Do I need to further define any of the words used to define "Actively" and "Participating"?  It thought it was clear when I outlined what I specifically meant with the words "involved" and "in" with this sentence: "As in you are in the US, or communicating from a location outside the US with people who are in the US that are active in, participating in, conducting or otherwise engaging in American politics."  I do not feel you are participating in American Politics.  Specific to being either in the US, or communicating from a location outside the US.    I do not think, given the information you have provided here, that you are in communication with people who:  Participate in, Conduct, or Engage in American Politics in a way that aims to make something happen in a positive way.  I think you are engaged in, meaning actively participating in, as in taking part in the action of, discussing American Politics.     "Ok so are you saying then by 'participating' then you mean actually voting?"  No.  I am saying that I do not think you are communicating with people who are participating in, conducting or engaging in American Politics.  I also do not think you are doing this yourself due to your geographical location. "I mean this is a political discussion forum where member's 'participate' in a discussion."  Yes.  I think you are "participating" in the discussion of American politics.  I do not think you are participating "IN" American politics. "I'm really at a loss to work out exactly what you are getting at. And your continued reluctance to simply tell me what it is that you are getting at makes me wonder what you expect me to infer."  You don't have to infer anything, I am doing my best to use clear words to describe why I think you are engaging in discussion, but not in American Politics.    If I do not ride motorcycles, but participate in this forum, I am engaged in the discussion of riding motorcycles but not in the activity of riding motorcycles.  I would not be, by my definition, engaged in riding motorcycles.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by verslagen1 on 11/18/20 at 19:26:23 do you need to define the word troll. many know exactly what it is.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/18/20 at 19:59:57 "I wouldn't consider reading and watching YouTube about American Politics to meet my definition of "engaged" but yeah he is Australian and consistently comments here."  I thought this was pretty clear, but if I keep getting asked questions I will keep giving answers.  None of that is derogatory in any way, all this, it seems to me, is an attempt to find some way to turn it into an insult.  Anyone else would have just said they do not agree with my interpretation of the word engaged.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/18/20 at 21:29:19 [b] I thought this was pretty clear, but if I keep getting asked questions I will keep giving answers.  None of that is derogatory in any way, all this, it seems to me, is an attempt to find some way to turn it into an insult.  Anyone else would have just said they do not agree with my interpretation of the word engaged No none of it is clear, I'll ask you for a third time the same question that you won't answer even though you claim you do answer. Just tell me what the point was that you were making.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/18/20 at 21:32:00 392A3D3C232E282A217E4F0 wrote: do you need to define the word troll. many know exactly what it is. More unwitting irony; you've just demonstrated what a being a troll is by posting something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread, and is simply a gratuitous attack, and a rather boring one at that. Again I have to say I'm amazed that you remained hidden for so long then after four years come out charging around with your obvious witless trolling.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/18/20 at 21:39:33 I do not think you are participating "IN" American politics. Again, what is the *point* you're making? None of that is derogatory in any way, all this, it seems to me, is an attempt to find some way to turn it into an insult. I didn't say it was derogatory did I. I'm just trying to understand the point if indeed you were making a point.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Serowbot on 11/19/20 at 07:03:05 ... and we also have a Danish member that participates in our discussions. I think it's very cool. Not saying it's a fact, but Eau could be a US citizen living and working in Australia... We don't know.  Didn't he say he voted early? Maybe I'm mixed up,... no matter. What I do know, is he knows what's going on better than I do.   Welcome all opinions. We don't exist in a bubble.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/19/20 at 11:24:02 "Just tell me what the point was that you were making."  Apache said you are "engaged" in American Politics.  I do not think you are.  Very specifically the word engaged and how I define it.  I think the word "engaged" by itself is an inaccurate assessment.  I'm not sure how to come up with more words as defining "engaged" other than being "involved in" and involved in meaning to "actively participate in something" and "actively" meaning with purpose.    If I am actively participating in American politics I am engaged in it and with purpose, am doing things with, in, for, a political agenda of some kind.  If I am talking about it from my couch, I am only engaged in the discussion of American Politics.    If I get on motorcycles and ride them, I am engaged in the riding of motorcycles.  If I talk about motorcycles, and do not ride one, I am not engaged in the riding of motorcycles.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/19/20 at 14:50:33 @Eegore, OK we're getting somewhere, finally. So correct me if I'm wrong... so Apache, makes a comment concerning my 'engagement' with US politics, and then you decide that I am in fact not 'engaged' with US politics based on how you understand the word 'engaged'? Is this correct so far? And further, refuting Apache's assertion that I am engaged, was the actual point you wanted to make? Yes?

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/19/20 at 16:44:40  I think that both my assessment and Apache's assessment are correct.  He believes you are engaged in American Politics, based off of his interpretation of the word engaged.  I do not believe you are engaged in American politics based off of my interpretation of the word engaged.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/19/20 at 17:24:21 At the considerable risk of venturing further into this rabbit hole... So you implicitly concur that the definition of words are in fact important and not trivial because you yourself say that your conclusion about whether I'm 'engaged' or not is different to someone else's view of whether I'm engaged or not. So this is why I was trying to pin you down. However you seem to have tangled yourself up a little bit. Let me explain. You claim that your definition of what 'politically engaged' means, is different to Apapche's definition. That's what you just said. However let me point out to your that Apache did not give 'his' definition. What you claim to be 'his' definition is merely your definition of what you somehow have concluded 'his' definition is. In other words they are both in fact 'your' definitions and they are both opposite. This is another example of how you do exactly what you complain others do to you, that is, putting words you did not say into your mouth. You've just defined what someone else meant as being opposite to what you meant but you defined it for them. Curiouser and curiouser. Let me clarify further, in order to be politically 'engaged' according to how you meant it what conditions precisely would I have to fulfil? Would I need to reside in the US or be a US citizen? Or are there some other criteria that I would have to satisfy in order to be 'politically engaged with US politics' according to your definition of engaged. Please be clear.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/19/20 at 17:48:45  He didn't give a definition, I just assume the words he said are the words he meant to use and his interpretation based off of context is different than mine because I would use different words.    If Apache says "I think that's a red hat" and I say "I wouldn't call that hat red" we can hash out what "red" means to me, but why would we assume Apache is "opposite" and thinks the hat is blue?    I could be absolutely wrong about Apache's definition of the words he chose to use.  He may not believe you are "engaged in" American Politics but only chose to use those exact words even though he does not interpret it to be accurate.  If he does not think you are "engaged in" American Politics I would have to wonder why he chose those words.  Are you proposing that Apache chose the words "engaged in" and does not think his own assessment is accurate?  I think when he said you are "engaged in" American Politics he meant that.    I would not choose those words since I do not think you are "engaged in" American Politics.  I think you are engaged in the discussion of American Politics. "Let me clarify further, in order to be politically 'engaged' according to how you meant it what conditions precisely would I have to fulfil?"  No you do not need to be a US citizen and you do not need to be in any specific geographical location. Engaging in American Politics, to me, would be to actively participate in, or conduct American Politics.  To be involved in them.  You do not accept those words as accurate enough.  So maybe saying what you do now, that I am aware of, on this forum, to me, is not "engaging in" American Politics.  Just as anyone here that does not ride motorcycles is not engaging in motorcycle riding.  They are engaging in the discussion of motorcycle riding.  What they do now is not the action of getting on a motorcycle, so they are not engaging in that activity.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by MnSpring on 11/21/20 at 19:33:29 23312526313735500 wrote: ... Again, what is the *point* you're making? ...   I believe the, ‘point’, is   you are commenting exactly like a, ‘troll’, would. OBTW, will you explain the Mountain Dew commercial. Where two males, dressed as Cowboys, are sitting horses, and the horses are sitting on top of a barn, and they are covered in copious amounts of, what looks like, sweat. After-all, you know it all, about a lot of things, so I am sure you can explain that commercial.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/21/20 at 21:11:41 Engaging in American Politics, to me, would be to actively participate in, or conduct American Politics.  To be involved in them. OK, I get it now. So you just wanted to say basically that I am not a US voter. And now I say, so what? What has that got to do with commenting on this so called political forum?

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/21/20 at 21:38:35 "OK, I get it now. So you just wanted to say basically that I am not a US voter. And now I say, so what?"  No.  I actually said the exact opposite of that.  Why are you ignoring the following sentence from my previous post answering that exact question? "No you do not need to be a US citizen and you do not need to be in any specific geographical location."  Putin is engaged in American Politics as he is a politician, and is actively participating in activities related to American Politics.  He is not a US voter but can still be involved in American Politics.  You asked this previous and have also ignored that answer: "Ok so are you saying then by 'participating' then you mean actually voting?"  My reply: " No.  I am saying that I do not think you are communicating with people who are participating in, conducting or engaging in American Politics." "What has that got to do with commenting on this so called political forum?"  Being a US voter, which you are ignoring I said is NOT a requirement, has nothing to do with commenting on this forum.  By commenting in this forum you are engaging in the Discussion of American Politics.  You are not engaged in American Politics by my definition.  No more than US voters or Non-US voters who comment here but do not ride motorcycles are engaged in the act of riding a motorcycle.  If I am a non-US voter and I do not paint, but I talk about paint on here I am not engaged in painting.  I am engaged in the discussion of painting.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by eau de sauvage on 11/22/20 at 00:00:55 That's why I asked you what would I have to do to be engaged in US politics, and you just tell me what I don't have to be, i.e. a US voter. Instead, so "involved" and "engaged" do not include certain things which you've mentioned. So just give me some actual examples of behaviour that you would call 'being engaged with US politics'. You given me example of what is not considered by you to be 'engaging' with US politics, voting being one of  them which just intrigues me even more as to what actions would I have to perform, to be "engaged" with US politics. So don't give me more definitions like "you'd be engaged, if you were involved", just give me actual examples, two or three would be nice. Then we can put this to bed.

Title: Re: It’s Here ! Post by Eegore on 11/22/20 at 08:39:26 That's why I asked you what would I have to do to be engaged in US politics, and you just tell me what I don't have to be, i.e. a US voter.  When you ask me, twice, if you need to be a US voter I will answer it.  I will "just" tell you no, every time you ask.  You indicate the multiple words I use define "engaged" are not enough for you to understand.  Actively participating, involved, conduct, etc. You won't accept those as descriptions of what you have to do.    Mavi went and worked at a polling location.  At that time he was engaged in American Politics.  The election is over, he is no longer engaged in American Politics but now discusses his activities and is engaged in the discussion of American Politics.    He was actively involved, as in he wasn't at home sitting at a computer talking about polling locations, he was at an actual polling location.    If you printed Biden signs  per campaign request as a non-US citizen outside of the US, you would be engaged in American Politics.  If you had designed the software as a non-US citizen and offered tech support from an area outside the US, you would still be involved, or engaged in, American Politics, since you would have done something directly related to American Politics.    There a many ways to be engaged IN American Politics, but what you are doing now, on this forum, is not that by my definition.  It is as you describe it "communication" and as such I say you are engaged in the Communication of American Politics.  Nothing about what we do here changes, alters, influences, contributes to, functionally changes American Politics.  As you said, you do not need to be in South Africa to say something about apartheid, but does talking about apartheid on a motorcycle forum mean you are engaged in apartheid?  I say no.  Everyone here but you, judging by the PM's I am getting, understand the difference between talking about something and doing something.

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.