posted on July 21, 2002 09:25:53 PM new
Borillar, the comment quoted was one made several months ago. What was the context? To be honest, I don't recall, though in this case I stand by my words.
I say your rants about Bush are non-sequiteur because you inject them into any and EVERY thread, whether related or not. You are welcome to your opinion, to defend your opinion, and even to push your opinion on others, but the way you drag Bush into EVERY topic is tiresome and a discussion-killer. Most people are happy to let you have your opinion. Why can't you allow others the same courtesy?
Your opinions are just that - opinions - and it is the height of arrogance to think that they are any more important or valuable than any others. As so often happens, you are not interested in discussion, but in shoveling your opinions down the throat of anyone who happens to post here. Nobody is "slinking" away anywhere, they just have better things to do than listen to your endless, repetitive tirades. Perhaps that is the reason that the "regulars" in this forum can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
It may amaze you to know that for the most part, I agree with you. But I also find it inappropriate for you to belly-flop into totally unrelated threads solely to continue your unremitting three-part harmony of Bush-bashing.
KRS, I acknowlege that innocents have been killed. That is a tragedy. You mention hundreds. I mentioned billions of potential casualties. Like your unfortunate comrades, you simply can't conceive of another viewpoint, though you admit you have no answers. You take the coward's way out by letting others bring up the unfortunate question of "acceptable" casualties and then attack from the rear, but with no positive input of your own.
Do you think anyone LIKES the idea of civilian casualties? Do you think anyone relishes the death of a general's wife and kids who just happened to be living at the so-called aspirin factory? They do not. So spare me your moral high-ground grabbing. You know very well what the results of Saddam's WOMD programs will be. Not surprising you, Helen and the rest are mute on this subject.
Let me put it simply. My opinion. We can not allow the proliferation of WOMD. If that means killing a few thousand Taliban, even a few hundred civilian casualties, that is the price that must be paid NOW for preventing a much greater holocaust in just a few years' time.
posted on July 21, 2002 10:57:10 PM new
The question about the possibility that Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction does not worry me any more than the possibility that India, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, China, Russia and the United States under the direction of our leader, George W. Bush will use such weapons. To eliminate Saddam Hussein will not end the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction all over the world. Do you propose going to war with every country in the world with the capacity to use such weapons?
posted on July 21, 2002 11:02:06 PM new
twinsoft, I only bring up my rants in other threads if appropriate. Usually, it pertains to the topic, even though other people did not see it. Other times, the thread is long dead and posters have first begun to chat about the weather, and then devolve into arguing, then finally bringing up politics. It is at that point that I bring it up as well. I have made it a point to not bring up politics in unrelated threads since Spring 2001, unless, as I said, the thread is dead and someone else brings it up first; or, it really does relate.
For instance, SPAM. There have been many SPAM threads. Complaining, crying, trying to find solutions. I point out that much of the cause is the GOP who openly and blatantly supports and sides with the spammer's lobby, The American Marketer's Assoc. and SPAM-haters to take their complaints to them because they block anti-spam consumer legislation. Sorry, but that's related, so I bring it up anyway.
As far as there only being a handful of posters on here, let me give to you and everyone else my analysis of the situation as I see it.
Someone starts a non-political thread and sometimes, someone is actually interested in making a few posts in it. What happens is that it gets dull and boring for many regulars, so they stop posting in there and go on to the political threads that they find much more interesting. That's life in the Forums - either you make it fun or everyone goes elsewhere.
Then, the regulars that the RT does have tend to come in like clockwork and post a message or two in every political forum - which is what they enjoy. That means that the next person who logs in will see these other, less answered threads vanish to the bottom, then out of sight. The non-political threads go away not because we harass the hell out fo anyone, but because we regulars simply aren't interested in many of them.
If you don't like that, get your friends to produce their credit cards like we did, come in here, and post like hell on the subjects that you and your friends want to enjoy.
Do the regulars post politics in non-political threads? I've given you my answer - which I think that you unfairly earmarked me for those comments. I have seen others do that, but you'll have to take it up with them, not me, as I play it by the rules I've stated above and I can't make anyone abide by my own rules here.
So, yes, the competition is fierce here. Non-political threads often die out because nobody here enjoys them for days at a time. Political threads stay longer because there's always so much more to say.
As far as how I approach other posters, you can hardly berate my approach. Am I interested in reading responses? Yes, otherwise I wouldn't continue to post. Do I come on strong? You bet! Why? Because others post their opinions here and they expect what in return? Everyone to throw palm leaves down in front of them as they walk past? If you go into an open forum and post your thoughts and nobody makes a comment on it for fear of chasing the poster away, then the situation quickly becomes absurd.
Using your logic for instance, I post a thread, stating the subject/topic and perhaps giving my opinion on the subject. Then, everyone gives his or her opinion round-Robin WITHOUT commenting on anyone else's post! Then, when we're all done stating what we think, we do what?
Nothing.
So the thread dies and we go on and take the time to create another one and do the same thing ad infinitum?
No.
Everyone leaves to find somewhere that it isn't so b-o-r-i-n-g and they can have a discussion.
So we don't just let a person's opinion sit there unmolested, we challenge it. In the RT, I quickly learned not to be mealy-mouthed about what I say and think. I learned early on to make sure that I could back up my words if I had to. (Admittedly, sometimes I don't on purpose for my own reasons) Do I come on strong? No stronger than people have to me in the past in the RT!
So, since you are so good at pointing out what is wrong with my approach, how about making some suggestions as to how we ought to approach discussions? Should we ask AW to import a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and require everyone to use it? Do you think that we need a Debating Referee? (not a moderator) What?
Of course there are issues of greater significance than the actions in Afghanistan, dummy, but they are not the hay grown in this thread pasture.
You think, twinsoft, that because you have brought those other things to this thread that all things stop until they are addressed here? You'll never realize your board queen goals that way.
posted on July 22, 2002 01:00:29 AM new
Borillar, it's no big deal. You asked, so I told you. I realized long ago this forum won't change. Personally, I find dredging up a person's old posts from months ago to be lame and utterly pathetic. But you asked for it.
Let me help you pat yourself on the back. Oh yeah, you challenge this forum. Just like I challenged Helen here to back up her position. After all, as you say, this thread would be boring if we all simply agreed and let it go at that.
I asked Helen politely three times, then she finally responded by throwing some age-old dispute into the blender. We've had plenty of interaction since then. Why suddenly throw out that old crap? I'll tell you why. Because she HAS no answer. Let me tell you, if all you can do is bash the government, without adding ANYTHING positive to the discussion, then your opinion means SQUAT. That's why Helen's posts are so much yippety-yap, yippety-yap like some neighbor's annoying Chihuahua until you just want to kick the crap out of it.
Yes, I challenged this thread. And the three of you failed miserably to support your opinions (did I say "opinions," I meant links). Instead you pulled some diversionary tactic that wouldn't fool the newest, just-registered-today newbie. Nice try, but nobody's buying that righteous indignation crap so don't even bother.
I'm not afraid to state my opinion and go out on a limb, even though often I have been wrong. THAT is what enhances discussion. But the regulars here just go on reciting by rote their dull, mindless tirades against Bush and the Republicans, thinking that obscure links give their ideas some validity. The result is a pack of brain-dead zombies with absolutely nothing to contribute.
posted on July 22, 2002 03:10:32 AM new
Oh la-te-da! ow utterly noble art thou, thinsoft!
But really, what were your questions? So important as to grant you a position in review of all which takes place amongst others?
What? Why, you asked but one which is, out of the blue in it's pertinence to the topic:
twinsoft
posted on July 17, 2002 07:45:15 PM
Okay, Helen. So Bush is gearing up to deal with Saddam/Iraq.
Saddam has repeatedly engaged in ethnic cleansing and committed genocide on his own people. He pays families a huge sum to
send children on suicide missions aimed at killing Israeli civilians. He is actively developing biological and nuclear weapons of
mass destruction.
I ask you seriously. Do you see a problem with Saddam? If so, how do you suggest we deal with him, if at all?
??? What in the world has saddam to do with anything here? Well, look. My personal opinion is that I think saddam is a danger to world peace and american profit and should be killed by use of surrupticious or if you like 'clandestine' or 'covert' action forthwith. There's no need for cowardly bombing all of the otherwise hopelessly oppressed people of Iraq into oblivion while missing saddam.
But what has that do do with this thread about the already misused and horribly rendered people and children of Afghanistan again?
Now will you take your jerkoff moralizing off to your newest auction cooperative failure?
posted on July 22, 2002 11:30:10 AM new
I did ask twinsoft for some answers instead of just complaints. I still got complaints, no answers. And a lot of hostility directed towards me, when all I've been is nice as hell towards twinsoft. I guess that sums up the business there.
Still, I'd like to say a few things myself.
Borillar, it's no big deal. You asked, so I told you. I realized long ago this forum won't change. Personally, I find dredging up a person's old posts from months ago to be lame and utterly pathetic. But you asked for it.
Actually, no. I didn't dredge anything up. Someone else dredged it up and you're blaming me for it. Typical of you.
Let me help you pat yourself on the back.insultOh yeah, you challenge this forum. Just like I challenged Helen here to back up her position. After all, as you say, this thread would be boring if we all simply agreed and let it go at that.
While it would have contributed to the discussion, I see many threads in the RT where someone simply puts a Thread Title and then nothing put a link in the opening post. What kind of a contribution is that? I can't speak for Helen as she has her own reasons as to why she did not wish to answer your Israli-Palestinian-Irag question.
Let me tell you, if all you can do is bash the government, without adding ANYTHING positive to the discussion, then your opinion means SQUAT.
Apparently, you don't even read your own threads, twinsoft. Example: "I know what it's like to be dead " thread that you started, I contributed several posts and not once mentioning politics. Or, how about the sex & drugs & rock n roll (warning:fluffy) where I posted in there a substantial post with no mention of politics, or the last 100 non-political threads? Accusations are easy to make, twinsoft, but you need to back them up with more than just a feeling.
That's why Helen's posts are so much yippety-yap, yippety-yap like some neighbor's annoying Chihuahua until you just want to kick the crap out of it.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, twinsoft. Helen contributes a lot here depending upon her mood. However, let's contrast that with other regulars: except for a few, most of them never start a thread, most never have anything to contribute to any thread except pure excrement. Do you rail at them for being so boorish? I don't see that at all.
Helen tends to be in-your-face. She much more to the Left than I am and likes to bring that slant to her posts. I personally see nothing wrong with those threads and posts. a) At least she starts threads; b) She makes intelligent posts; c) she makes a lot of thoughtful contributions to every discussion, even if they don't meet everyone's High Standards of Quality. I suggest that you also go try other message forums and see how dreary they are with the mindless chatter from under-18 yo posters whose more important topic is the Prom Date and from ignorant people who never heard of posting a link to support their positions.
[b]Yes, I challenged this thread. And the three of you failed miserably to support your opinions (did I say "opinions," I meant links).]/b]
?? I have no idea what planet that you're coming from, besides the anti-Helen one. When asked to discuss what we might do to help out, I certainly put in my two cents. And if you read what I wrote, I don't think that providing links to anything that I wrote is relevant. I also refuse to provide links for lazy people. Why should *I* go to the trouble to provide links to people who will simply dismiss them out-of-hand, no matter how prestigious or solid a source that it is, when they can just as well go dig up links to prove that I'm WRONG?
Which is the Right way? Let's use some logic and commonsense. IF everyone who posted had to provide one or more solid and well-substantiated links for ever opinion that they give, how long would this forum stand? It wouldn't. It would drop dead the same day that the rule was made.
Contrary. IF everyone who disbelieved what the other person said was required to provide a valid link to a solid and substantial source to prove WHY that first person was wrong, that would be sensible; perhaps not workable either.
Analysis: DO NOT REQUIRE LINKS TO SUBSTANCIATE OPINIONS.
Instead you pulled some diversionary tactic that wouldn't fool the newest, just-registered-today newbie. Nice try, but nobody's buying that righteous indignation crap so don't even bother.
If what you are referring to is my indignation at your accusations, I had every right to defend myself. Was it wrong to do that? This thread is dead. Most people who posted said their piece - mostly asinine crap, and then left. No one wanted to discuss the topic of this thread - they just wanted to bash it. I don't blame Helen in the least for not answering an off-topic question when no one was discussing her topic in this thread. I had already addressed and answered the topic of this thread, to which almost no one responded to. Fine with me. What was left? The Thread was DEAD twinsoft, as much as your efforts to "challenge" Helen on the Israeli-Palestinian-Iraqi question that had nothing to do with the continuing murder of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, IMO.
I'm not afraid to state my opinion and go out on a limb, even though often I have been wrong. THAT is what enhances discussion.
Good for you! We all have from time to time. However, there is a large amount of people who tromp in here, try to tell everyone what life is really all about, learn just how stupid that they are, then go away crying. The rest of us aren't so thin-skinned and use it as a learning lesson and continue on here. I say: let the Momma's Boys go running away! The RT is for ADULTS ONLY.
But you can 'state your opinion and go out on a limb' but if Helen or I do it, well that's just relegated to rote dull and mindless tirades! Shame on you!
The result is a pack of brain-dead zombies with absolutely nothing to contribute.
No, you're just jaded. You're too used to the Quality of posting here in the RT, even if you get tired of subjects that others do not. Take a vacation from the RT: go see what kind of REAL mindless crap is out there! At least by requiring a credit card, you can be sure that you aren't discussing things with a 12 or 13 year old!
My prescription for you: Take a Chill-Pill, relax, enjoy!
Seriously, nobody here deserved that silly attack. .
Isn't it interesting that twinsoft wanted an answer from me so desperately that he asked the question not once but three times even though he describes me as a dimwitted cheerleader and a member of the group whose opinions don't mean QUACK? I knew the motive of his desperate need for an answer so I chose not to accomodate him.by answering his question.
Twinsoft, A correction...I posted the insulting remark that you made to Borillar, krs and me. You stated incorrectly as Borillar pointed out ...in your post at the top of the page that Borillar dredged it up. BTW I didn't have to dredge it up.
posted on July 22, 2002 06:41:31 PM new
Borillar, point of fact. After Helen brought up the old post, you wrote:
What a bazaar insult!
(BTW, the correct spelling is bizarre.) You then went on to address that comment Helen quoted.
Having said that, I want to apologize to anyone and everyone who I might have offended. Those of you who have watched me post for a while know that occasionally I just let 'er rip, just to amuse myself.
Borillar, I'm sorry that you took my criticism to heart. You don't inject your political ideology into every thread and you have been very polite. Helen's posts don't always sound like yippety-yap.
You guys haven't been around long enough to know that I (and certain other posters here) are just playing head games. All these posts (including mine) ultimately mean squat. Forget about it. It's common practice here that when a person makes a statement they can't back up, that person goes on the attack to cover up their own inadequacy. That was one reason for the extremity of my posts. Turnabout is fair play.
Borillar, your characterization of posters who don't like the way this forum operates is just as one-sided as my rants. The idea that posters "slink away" from here because they can't defend their opinions is hogwash. You can't see the problem, but who cares? Anybody who doesn't like it is welcome to leave.
Again, it's all in fun, so don't take it too seriously. I don't. In truth, there has been some improvement here. Not a lot, but some.
posted on July 22, 2002 07:07:41 PM new
As a human being, I always hate to see human suffering, but let's remember that history is a long winding road of confict between good versus evil.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. represents evil in any such conflicts doesn't get it. And anyone who doesn't realize that our country is being invaded has their head in the sand.
I hope we continue to go after terrorists, wherever they have a foothold, before September 11th's tragedies are forgotten in the wake of all-too-possible nuclear or bioweapons scenarios which loom ahead.
I don't believe most Americans hate Muslim people, or any other people for that matter. But I promise you, terrorists, and the hypocritical Koran-waving governments of countries like Iraq and Syria want to see America in rubble.
If it's going to come down to "us" or "them," I pray it's our way of life which will win out.
posted on July 22, 2002 07:16:25 PM new"BTW, the correct spelling is bizarre.)"
Huh, uh! Not according to my Word 2002 Spellchecker from Microcrap!
At any rate, you all can enjoy yourselves for a while without me. It's that time of year for me to start getting everything ready for the Christmas season and that means new inventory and a e-commerce web site and eBay and all Hell breaking loose - on top of my full-time web design company. So, I probably won't be back on until January again. I doubt that in the meantime that anyone currently here will change their minds in the least ~ especially those who never had one to begin with.
posted on July 22, 2002 07:28:08 PM new
Bonilar, you might as well stay here Christmas has been cancelled because they cant find 3 wise men in (pick a capitol)
posted on July 22, 2002 07:42:58 PM new
Bye, Borillar. See you in January. I suspect you always knew I was sometimes (not always) tweeking your nose a bit when I poked my head in your threads to make a comment. You were always a good sport about it though.
posted on July 22, 2002 08:52:42 PM new
Borillar! You're leaving? What's to become of us??? There's an election between now and January..how will we cope??
****sniff****
enjoy your time away but don't forget to come back!
posted on July 23, 2002 01:01:55 AM new
Borillar, Bunz is right, there is an important election in Nov! Much work to be done, lots to be said. I sure will miss your imput and wisdom, no matter that a few here will be happy to see you leave for awhile.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jul 22, 2002 07:37 AM ]