Dear Editor,
Of late I have been meeting people who continually let me know that they are surprised that I have not responded to the rhetoric of Olivier Arrindell. I usually consult the dictionaries when I use words which can be interpreted several ways. In this case the definition of rhetoric is “language designed to have persuasive or impressive effect, but which is regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content”.
Because it concerns politics I will use this saying as an example: “All we have from the opposition is empty rhetoric.” So my answer to those who expected me to write about Mr. Arrindell, my answer was and still is “Every man to his trade.”
I know that there are mixed sentiments and emotions among those who follow that gentleman. Some of them do not agree for him to be using the name of St. Maarten in conjunction with his obscene
language, even though he is talking about getting back the money which the corrupt politicians have ripped off the backs of St. Maarten people. When I ask what is wrong with that, the consensus is: “If we follow him, people are going to think that all St. Maarten people are like him.” At that point I usually change the subject because I would have to give an opinion and it might be taken out of context.
As you are aware I usually put my opinion black on white and I do not disperse information that I cannot vouch for.
In my experience on the job I have encountered thousands of people who were forewarned but did not adhere to what was said to them, and reacted with “If I had known.” But like I have written several times in the past, my father used to tell us, “I do not want to have to tell you ‘I told you so’ because 99 percent of the time, ‘I told you so’ comes as the result of something negative.”
All I will say is that there is a Dutch saying: “Een gewaarschuwd man telt voor twee” (in English, “forewarned is forearmed.”)
Even though my job got me involved in almost everything in the community, I still maintain “every man to his trade”.
Russell A. Simmons
