Was this addressed to me, Craven?:
"But to call him a fascist (much in the way you call me a fascist) is dishonest."
I don't believe I've called Timber a "fascist" because I don't believe (of course!) that he is one. He does seem to be willing to support extremism just to stick it to the left, but that seems more accurately childish -- and unhelpful. As "moderator," it might appear that his role is to keep the conversation here below boiling point. Dream on! May I suggest that "moderator" be changed to "staff" or "A2K guide" or something similar?
Tartarin wrote:Was this addressed to me, Craven?:
"But to call him a fascist (much in the way you call me a fascist) is dishonest."
Yes. Timber was called a facist and Blatham replied saying that it was an appelation that Timber did not deserve. You replied saying you do not afford Timber that respect.
You have called me a facist before as well and it was addressed to you for those reasons. I allege that you accuse people of being facist fecklessly.
Quote:I don't believe I've called Timber a "fascist" because I don't believe (of course!) that he is one.
I am pleased that by addressing it to you this was clarified.
Quote:As "moderator," it might appear that his role is to keep the conversation here below boiling point. Dream on!
The role of the moderators will, understandably, differ from the role you would wish them to play for you.
Quote:
May I suggest that "moderator" be changed to "staff" or "A2K guide" or something similar?
Suggestions of that variety are given all the consideration that they are due.
Here comes the draft ....
Quote: Appeal for draft board volunteers revives memories of Vietnam era
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday November 5, 2003
The Guardian
The Pentagon has begun recruiting for local draft boards, dredging up painful memories of Vietnam era conscription at a time of deepening misgiving about America's occupation of Iraq.
In a notice posted on the defence department's Defend America website, Americans over the age of 18 and with no criminal record are invited to "serve your community and the nation" by volunteering for the boards, which decide which recruits should be sent to war.
Thirty years have passed since the draft boards last exerted their hold on America, deciding which soldiers would be sent to Vietnam. After Congress ended the draft in 1973, they have become largely dormant.
However, recruitment for the boards suggests that in some parts of the Pentagon all options are being explored in response to concerns that the US military has been stretched too thin in its occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Although Pentagon officials denied any move to reinstitute the draft, the defence department website does not shirk at outlining the potential duties for a new crop of volunteers to the draft boards.
"If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 local and appeal boards throughout America would decide which young men who submit a claim receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on federal guidelines," it said.
Pentagon officials were adamant that there were no plans to bring back the draft.
"That would require action from Congress and the president and they are not likely to do that unless there was something of the magnitude of the second world war that required it," said Dan Amon, a spokesman for the selective service department.
Bringing back conscription would be catastrophic for George Bush in an election year, and at a time when parallels are increasingly being drawn between Iraq and Vietnam.
However, officials were not immediately able to explain how the advertisement appeared on the site. Mr Amon said the notices were a response to the natural attrition in the ranks of the draft board, where some 80% of 11,000 places are now vacant. "It is the routine cycle of things," he said.
But it was unclear why the Pentagon decided at this time it was necessary to fill staff bodies which had played no function since the early 1980s.
The idea of a draft has never entirely disappeared, and is contemplated by Democrats and some military experts.
In the run-up to the war, the New York congressman Charles Rangel argued for a draft on the grounds that the US military was disproportionately made up of poor and black soldiers, and that it was unfair for America's underclass to go off and die in wars.
In recent weeks, there has been growing concern within the defence department about relying too heavily on members of the National Guard and army reservists.
Some 60,000 of the 130,000 US soldiers in Iraq are members of the National Guard or the reserves. An opinion poll last month in the Pentagon-funded Stars and Stripes newspaper, showed 49% threatening not to re-enlist.
The families of reservists have become increasingly vocal in their complaints after the Pentagon's decision to extend duty tours to up to 15 months.
SOURCE
I realize Timber was called a fascist but I don't believe I called him one, Craven. Did I? During my time on A2K, however, I think he gone from being reasoned conservative to defensive -- and often arbitrary -- autocrat and for that reason he has lost my respect.
But there has been another change: back six or more months ago, those who consider themselves "liberal" here countered the Coulter-style attacks with humor, sometimes irritation, often indignation, but seldom responded by attacking.
As the Iraq invasion made it clear that the administration is headed for trouble (numbers slid down, the media stopped playing toady, truths emerged), the "conservative" side of the equation here escalated its reactions. You probably don't have time to do this, but you might want to check this out. There's occasionally bad behavior on the "liberal" side, but enough of what you're seeing is "turnabout is fair play" which might elicit some respect on your part.
You've done a remarkable job in creating A2K and keeping it going. But perhaps the time has come to take a deep breath and feel some gratitude towards all (and I mean all, whether you like them or not) contributors whose patience, tenacity, understanding, enthusiasm, financial contributions, and willingness to overlook periodic tantrums and hang in there, have also helped keep A2K going.
Edgar,
I was an adoring follower of Philip Wylie in my college years. (But kerefully, not cravenly.)
Tartarin wrote:During my time on A2K, however, I think he gone from being reasoned conservative to defensive -- and often arbitrary -- autocrat and for that reason he has lost my respect.
How has be been "arbitrary" and an "autocrat"? For "arbitrarily" having an opinion in much the same way that most do?
Quote:There's occasionally bad behavior on the "liberal" side, but enough of what you're seeing is "turnabout is fair play" which might elicit some respect on your part.
I'm afraid I have little respect for that. It emanates from certain quarters consistently and I certainly don't indict all liberals for this. It is the few bad apples that hurt the whole.
Quote:You've done a remarkable job in creating A2K and keeping it going. But perhaps the time has come to take a deep breath and feel some gratitude towards all (and I mean all, whether you like them or not) contributors whose patience, tenacity, understanding, enthusiasm, financial contributions, and willingness to overlook periodic tantrums and hang in there, have also helped keep A2K going.
Again, suggestions of this variety are promptly given all the consideration that they are due.
You have frequently voiced your displeasure and have called the moderators here "useless". Frankly I don't believe your "suggestions" are made in good faith. I think your repeated calls for site moderators to change their procedures are a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that you continue to break the TOS and advocate that others do the same by lowering the standards and indulging in insults and namecalling.
I understand that you think this is something that Conservatives started and that you think this is somehow a form of fair "turnabout" but that is immaterial to the site's policy and it won't be tolerated here, regardless of how deserving you think your calls to insults and namecalling may be.
God damn...this is making me angry.
The notion, expressed earlier by you, craven, that Tartarin seeks to drive all dissenting or right wing voices from the board is ludicrous. I don't know who might share this notion with you, but it sure as hell isn't shared by me or anyone else I know of.
The other thread that I began a while ago was moving along just fine, with sparks but with folks digging in and trying to build bridges. Your appearance, and your attacks on Tartarin, caused the disruption that occured.
So you, and some others, don't like Tartarin. Noted. I, and many others, do. So, what are you going to do now? Continue to attack her? Continue to attempt to drive HER off the board, for that surely seems your intent.
Tart, you've never, as far as I've read, called me a fascist. That deserves to be on-record. Now, I do take issue with your conention that my "style" nhas changed. That I feel is both inaccurate and unfair.
There are thousands and thousands of my posts on boards all over the 'Net, a couple of which boards I know you to be familiar with. I could be wrong, I don't remember every reply I've typed over the years, but I wager you'd be hard-pressed to find one wherein I attacked or excoriated a poster ... that poster's ideas, statements, position, argument, documentation, conclusions, assumptions, assertions, allegations, sources, style, or substance, but not the poster. I'm quite clear on the difference between saying "You're an idiot" and saying "That was an idiotic thing to say, because ... ". Some folks find it difficult to maintain, or even to make, that differentiation. Its my contention that resorting to dismissiveness, disrespect, and personal attacks are clear admissions of lack of valid counter-argument.
I freely admit to being a bit smug from time to time. I also understand that my having frequent opportunity to be smug irritates hell out of some who's ideologies and arguments are inconvenienced by the circumstances which occasion my smugness. Often I am immensely entertained at the discomfort expressed byby some at my simple reporting of facts, official documents, and figures. I'm much bigger on evidence than emotion, and, consequently, more often cite "hard news", academically accepted history, and peer-reviewed studies than opinion pieces, screed, and annecdotes. Unable to qualitatively address my argument in a given case, some fall to the most scurillous of practices.
I do some flag-waving, to be sure, and I clearly consider most of "The Liberal Point of View" not to be founded in reality, or formulated with informed, reasoned concern for the overall good. That you, or anyone else, may feel otherwise is perfectly fine with me. I may not accept or be swayed to embrace a point of view differing from mine, but while I may be critical of opposing views, I am tolerant of them. From my point of view, it is necessary that one wishing to counter my argument or to sway my position be required to present a superior argument. I guess that's an awful lot to ask of some folks.
I'm not attacking her Blatham, she has consistently suggested that I leave the politics forum or take a break from the forum altogether. She calls me a fascist and the site's moderator's useless.
I do not consider it an "attack" to note that these suggestions are not made in good faith.
I know that you support Tartarin despite her attacks on others, that's your prerogative. It is not fair, however, to characterize the mention of her insults as attacks when there are merely complaints that her insults degrade the forum.
You are trying to say that I am "attacking" Tartarin in an otherwise positive setting and that's a lie. My comments to or about Tartarin are always precipated by her use of insults and attacks on others.
In the example you speak of her insults included "Duce". "smart-ass" and more while I simply complained about her insults and her call for others to adopt namecalling and insults and "stick it" to the members whose politics she doesn't agree with.
This is the very same thing I would do and have done when the insults were directed at her. When she was being called a traitor and unamerican for her political views I took issue with those who did so as well. Back then you didn't think that I was "attacking" the people who were giving her those labels. I suppose that is because you agreed that they were unwarranted.
Once again you seek to establish my intent. I don't wish to make you angry uneccessarily but I do not respect an opinion that takes a one-sided view and supports the use of insults on the boards.
It is for these reasons (your defense of any insult Tartarin seeks to level and your tendency to state for everyone my opinion and my intent whenever you ahve gotten both wrong) that was the cause of our falling out and while I don't have any intention of angering you, I wish I could be certain of the same position for you. You continue to establish, to your whim, what my intent and my opinion is. And you continue to equate Tartarin's insults to any complaint about them.
Okay, boys and girls. I think there's been enough misunderstandings by all concerned. Let's all put on our "calm" hat, shake hands, and then duke it out "on topic." As much as I have disagreed with timber on many forums, I still respect him for his ability to convey his message without aggressively attacking people. A mild punch here and there are but friendly jabs, and I'm also guilty of same. Aren't we all? Back to topic. Thx, c.i.
I just wanna observe that if blatham and I can differ civilly, anyone should be able to. I believe the history of interactions between he and I (and that history is substantial) reflect that while we may not be always, or even frequently, in agreement, it is possibe to disagree in agreeable manner. Frankly, I don't much care if Tartarin, or anyone else, accepts or endorses my point of view. What is pertinent is that I state, support, and clarify my own point of view, and that anyone else is welcome to do precisely that too. I don't feel it is at all correct to maintain that an opponent is wrong or otherwise diminished merely because I find that opponent's point of view misconcluded or otherwise unsatisfying. I don't think there's any justification for doing so. If there's one entitlement to which I subscribe, its that we're all entitled to think for ourselves.
Hey, I have met timber and can say without a doubt he is the most compassionate of conservatives.
I think
It riles them to believe that you percieve the web they weave
< just some off the wall crap to break the tension >
craven
Where I have spoken of your intent or of your thinking and been mistaken, I apologize. You are often curt, and I've made inferences.
I don't agree with you about Tartarin. I don't agree with Tartarin about you. That all four of us (including timber) piss people off is pretty evident. That Tartarin was out of line with the Duce comment, you betcha. That timber, asherman and a few others set Tartarin up months ago as the pardigm of paranoid delusionary lefties with traitorous intent or consequnce, and that history is still lingering, you betcha. And she is too quick to the frustrated insult, yes. At our advanced age, tart, timber and I suffer fools not easily...you're ahead of your years on this characteristic too.
It is improbable that a group of individuals as diverse in personality and histories as we all are will be following the Miss Manners Guide to Proper Online Political Discourse at a time such this, in a setting so binary as US politics has become. There is cause for citizen anger. There is cause for anxiety about the future. We all give a **** and none of us is worthless in the debate.
So maybe I can convince Tart to lay low with the firecrackers, and send them on to me for detonation. And maybe I can convince the folks who think she is the wicked witch of the east that she has an intelligence and life experience broader and richer than most of us.
And maybe my Lada will start this morning.
Nah, not a bong. Its a kazoo. A good kazoo readily can be pressed into bong-substitute service, though. So can beverage cans, paper-product tubes, and all sorts of plumbing and electrical fittings.
Ah yes .... afterwards the mind wrenching spell weaving notes of twinkle twinkle little star.
Sweet 60's
