roger,
The reason it didnt bother me was because no matter what I said,he was going to try to start a fight.
I didnt feel like giving him the pleasure.
He reminded me of some of the fools on Abuzz,and I learned along time ago to ignore them.
Where was the threat of physical harm?
Yep, that's over the line.
I think Henry was way over the line -- and a bit of a jerk. And I probably busted his chops as much as anyone else here. But I really didn't think he deserved to be axed.
I must have missed the "threat" stuff.
There have been many more "over the line" examples in A2K, far stronger than that. I'm thinking of dropping A2K unless there's a good explanation.
Over the line is over the line and Henry was over the line. As far as actions, I'm not a moderator, and they must do what is necessary!
I do know that there are a few people on the "other side" that are no longer on A2K!.`
Tartarin, I would miss you if you left. You are inspiring in a lot of ways!
Holy ****, Tartarin. Don't leave. That would be a reaction way greater than the situation demands.
MY GUESS: Henry will find a way back here -- most likely under another name.
MY OTHER GUESS:
He won't be hard to spot.
Geesh, The Police Patrol IMHO went over-board on this one! I gotta agree with Tartar that there's a HUGE difference between "Threats, Personal Attacks, and Freedom of Speech." I didn't see anywhere that henrygreen made "Threats or Personal Attacks" that exceeded anything else of A2K, nor justified banning him. I know his anger showed through in his posts, and some of what he says can be offensive, but we ARE all adults here. He didn't physically hit anyone, did he? Jeeesh! c.i.
I wrote a note of disagreement with the action and sent it as a personal message to the Moderator site.
I suggest the other people who disagreed with the action do the same.
Frank Apisa wrote:MY OTHER GUESS:
He won't be hard to spot.
If you see posts about "feces-strewn pits," and those which advocate the immediate destruction of the United States and all its evil works, that may be your first clue . . .
Frank, Thank you. I've said my piece, and will do the same a bit later. Gotta let this thing sink in, and give this some thought, before I jump into my "defensive" mode. c.i.
Hello everyone, I am a 16 year old resident of Canada who's been reading these forums the last couple days and decided to register. I've noticed these forums are alot more civil then the smaller one's I'm used to where there are open un moderated flame fights (it seems the staff goes to great lengths to keep things civil) and I'm glad to see it's working. I am a very opinionated person but will most likely stay in the background for now as I am very much enjoying reading the opinions of people on here and am humbled.
Also caught in that last post that tartarim was considering leaving, well I've only read a couple pages of this forum so far but you certainly have some of the most respectful but intelligent opinions I have seen so far and I for one would love to read more from you.
Anyways, just dropped in to say hello, you may go back to your discussion about henry being banned! I kind of missed that when I skipped from page 3 to page 39!
peace
Hi Joelo, WELCOME to A2K. Don't stay in the background too long. We would appreciate hearing your 'voice' too. I think most of us old fogies miss the voice of young people today, because these kind of forums usually attract people with time on our hands. (I'm retired.) I find A2K to be my daily dose of entertainment and education. In that regard, I'm still learning and enjoying the spices of life. I'm sure you'll enjoy A2K. c.i.
joelo
Welcome. Your voice sounds vaguely familiar.
Regarding the recent flap...I was away and did not know of it. I don't take the quoted example as a threat, and think anyone who did is being foolish.
Setanta
I'm going to take you to task on 'no GI bashing'. Of course, there is the danger of generalization (all X are bad/good) but I see absolutely no reason to exempt this profession from the same criticisms as, for example, the judiciary or medicine, or any other such where the consequences of their policies and operations are of such importance to the community. I think the opposite is more prudent.
Though mysteryman did not address my point earlier, there are real consequences to individual psychology and hence to the community which arise from the way military are trained and educated. This isn't news. That a military is needed, and that some members of the community will have to be part of the organization are both real facts. But they are facts no greater than the consequential facts of their training.
As you (setanta) know, I come from a pacifist tradition (Mennonite) which says, to guys like Bush and Cheney, "you aristocrats can shove your war up your butts...or fight it yourselves." Of course, they don't fight it themselves, they count on folks who fall prey to the spiffy uniforms and the community validation of identity. Soldiers are easy to round up - most every culture does it and always has. That readiness is a curse easily as much as it is a blessing.
blatham,
I did not address your specific point because I didnt see one to address.
Yes,the military trains people to think and act as a team,and it has its traditions,but is that wrong?
Every proffessional organization does the same thing.It could be the Bar association,which has a code of ethics it expects its members to abide by,it could be any good medical school,it could be any pro sports team on the planet,or ant organized organization.The boy scouts,girl scouts,little league baseball,etc.
Religion does it,even families do it.
I have never said that everyone in the military is an angel,nor have I defended every action the military has undertaken.But,as much as every other organization has its share of "bad apples" and tries to weed them out,so does the military.
MM
Your post ignores everything of consequence about military training and education - everything which makes it unique from the other professions or organizations you list.
"Bad apples" isn't the point. The institutionalized dehumanization of trainees, the institutionalized demonization of the enemy, the institutionalized training to murder, the institutionalized authoritarianism in military group dynamics - those are the points.
oh I wouldnt worry about that cicerone, I dont think it's possible for me to not give my opinions for too long (take that as a good or bad thing!) but I've got quite a bit of catching up to do on these forums and I would enjoy listening for the time being!
blatham, the only thing I can think of is that I was on Michael Moore's forums for awhile until they were removed, hm.
BLatham, i wasn't exempting the military from criticism . . . when i use a term such as GI-bashing, i mean precisely the indiscriminate slurs one hurls at someone without knowing them, and which are based upon their membership in a class despised by those doing the bashing. There is a great distinction between justifiable criticism of an individual's actions, and vilifying them simply because "you're one of them!"
