RC> Hello Bob!

 RC> 17 Jun 08 00:19, you wrote to me:

 RC>>> Drop this line of crap or leave the echo.

 BK>>  I'm sorry, I do not understand. They get to lay all their shit
 BK>>  on me constantly, yet I lay a few lines on you and you pop your
 BK>>  cork?

 RC> Let me spell it out for you, this discussion we are having
 RC> started with you asking me to rule on something you thought
 RC> John Massey had done wrong, when I went to explain myself
 RC> you disagreed and started calling me stupid, hardly a good
 RC> way to fortify your argument.

 Well, he had done something wrong.

 And the idea that cutting off half the line didn't change the
 meaning is... well... low on the intellect scale.

 Your explanation made that clear. You didn't say it meant
 exactly the same thing, you tried to mind read my intent and
 meaning. You applied your interpretation of my true intent to
 justify changing the clear meaning of the literal words.

 RC> As for shit getting laid on you, I seem to note that the
 RC> river of shit has a bi-directional flow. Hey Full Duplexed
 RC> shit!

 Not even close. And you know it. You may lie to yourself, but
 that doesn't change reality.

 BK>>  Just change the echo name to the right wing preserve.

 RC> or not_as_anal_as_debate_and_pol_inc ?

 No, right wing preserve. The *ONLY* significant restriction in
 Debate and Pol_Inc is that you are not allowed to attack the
 other poster. All the other rules seldom need enforcing.

 IOW, you have to discuss issues. Gee...what a novel idea.

 Whereas you like to cut off that which hits at the right
 wingers, but if it hits at anyone else it's peachy keen dandy.

 If this were a physical meeting place the cops would shut you
 down for constant fights. Those bastards are the sort of cowards
 who say things when they feel safe that would get them in a
 fight if they said it in person.

 RC>>> You want to whine about someone not quoting something you
 RC>>> wrote, in this case an entire paragraph, yet you want to
 RC>>> call me stupid because I am not buying into your side of
 RC>>> this argument????

 BK>>  No, because you offer the dumbest arguements to justify not
 BK>>  enforcing the rule that has been clearly violated.

 RC> Here is the rule, one sentence:

 RC> *DO NOT* edit any quoted text to change the meaning or
 RC> context..

 Yep, and that is what he did. Clearly and without doubt.

 RC> When I wrote that rule, I forgot who it was that caused me
 RC> to write it, but what I had in mind was having people
 RC> change words or add words to someones original text, which
 RC> was what the initial (triggering ) infraction entailed.

 IOW, right and wrong have nothing to do with it, it's all a
 matter of whose ox is gored. Thanks for admitting it.

 BTW, editing to change the context most clearly involves
 deleting the context, which is what happens you delete half the
 sentence. Expecting others to mind read your *intent* is an
 absurd requirement.

 Cutting out half the line changes the meaning just as much as
 adding words.

 RC> I can see how you and Wilson will now split hairs and take
 RC> the word "edit" to its full literal definition.

 No, you split hairs and try to limit the word "edit" to no more
 than adding or changing words. Deleting words *IS* editing, by
 any rational standard.

 OH, and removing the last half clearly changed the context, if
 you want to lie about the meaning. And there is no possible
 doubt about that.

 RC> However in the rule file just a few lines up is this:

 RC> [Message Quoting]

 RC> When replying to messages in the open echo, you should
 RC> quote back those parts of the original message to remind
 RC> the person of what you are replying to. Please do not
 RC> over-quote messages, if you are not addressing every point
 RC> the original poster made.

 Which is not enforced, you let the right wingers quote msgs that
 include an entire thread, then just add a smiley to the end.
 Mimi is infamous for that.

 RC> Having had prior experience with you, you do need things
 RC> spelled out and I will revise the rule to explicitly state
 RC> the intent.

 IOW, you will revise it to protect the right wingers even
 further.

 BK>>  Anyone who cannot see that deleting the last half of the line
 BK>>  changes the meaning must be stupid. Or, perhaps not have English
 BK>>  as his first language. That could be the reason.

 RC> or perhaps that most soldiers except you dont resent their
 RC> service at all.

 See, you still twist it, and lie about it. I do not *resent* my
 service. I resent the fact that the chicken hawks were not
 required to serve. And I think every one of you should have been
 required to serve, even if there was no war at that time.
 Serving your country should be a requirement of citizenship. If
 a war started during your term of service, you would be all
 ready to go.

 RC>>> Ok, whose service has been demeaned?

 BK>>  Mine, Wilson's and Ackley's.

 RC> By whom?

 Don't you read your own echo? Mimi, Witt, Hulett, just for
 starters. I'll start forwarding every such msg to you so you
 won't have to ask again.

 RC> and have you forgotten that the service of Helm (deceased),
 RC> Richardson and Hardegree, have also been demeaned, mostly
 RC> by the 65 day wonder?

 No, I have not. I do recall how Richardson and Hardegree have
 trashed Ross endlessly. They deserve what they get.

 As to Helm, he was so sick and viscious even some of the right
 wingers disowned him. Even Vern said he tolerated Helm because
 of his condition.

 RC>>> The fact that you served a full commitment is something you
 RC>>> should be thanked for and I do thank you, nor do I recall
 RC>>> ever slighting your service, have I?

 BK>>  I did not say *YOU* did. That original was addressed to Hulett.

 RC> You did splatter some paint from your broad brush on me.

 Since you are defending the smear artists, and have now added
 your own smear, you put yourself in the line of fire.

 RC>>> What have I chicken hawked or are you like Sauer,
 RC>>> projecting?

 BK>>  Are you eager for the war in Iraq? Do you fully support Bush's
 BK>>  war in Iraq? If not, then I will apologize for that. If so, then
 BK>>  I will have to ask why you think we should have sent our men and
 BK>>  women to fight a war without just cause.

 RC> When the war began, I believed the intel and all that..

 Didn't we all. What we didn't know is, the war planning began
 before Bush even took office. And that it was all a lie. Bush
 was told day one there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11.
 And by the day after they were planning to attack Iraq.

 RC> I do believe that a abrupt chickenshit pullout will only
 RC> lead to the creation of Afghanistan II post-1980's style.

 Point one: The *IRAQIS* are demanding a date for withdrawal.

 Point two: The term 'chickenshit pullout' is pure chickenhawk.
 Even the men serving there said we should be out within a year,
 by a 70% majority, as reported in the military times newspapers.

 Point three: The Bush administration not only invaded under
 false pretenses, but screwed up the invasion, when the military
 command knew how to do it right.

 Point four: We *HAVE* to get out. That war is destroying our
 military. The military command has said so. The constant stream
 of post traumatic stress cases coming back should make that
 clear.

 Further, there is no way you can say we will not face another,
 and real, Iraq situation in the next few years. Yet we do *NOT*
 have the military capability to handle another such situation.
 Our military has something like *ZERO* forces ready for
 deployment. Remember during the end of Clinton's term, when the
 right was saying the military was a diasaster because two
 divisions out of ten was not ready for deployment? And those two
 were not ready because *elements* of the division were already
 deployed.

 Two divisions!

 I just looked at an Army press release on deployments. I am
 seeing division after division either deploying, ready to
 deploy, or returning from deployment. Not just one deployment,
 but third deployments. The troops in WW2 didn't fact this much
 theater time.

 www.tinyurl.com/4esczx

 Not too long after the invasion, some columnist or reporter
 pointed out that, if China tried to take Taiwan, we had nothing
 we could send to oppose them. The pentagon replied that we could
 have the troops re-equiped and re-trained to deploy within a few
 months. Now just what would they do for Taiwan after a few
 months? Send flowers?

 Not only are they destroying our army, but they are stripping
 the National Guard of equipment, and sending it to Iraq.

 On top of all that, they are denying the wounded the treatment
 they need when they get back. They are neglecting those who went
 over there and paid the price for your belief that pulling out
 will be "chickenshit withdrawal". You want them to stay, but
 they pay the price.

 Remember, Old Blood and Guts? Well, this is your guts - their
 blood.

 How many more have to die for your opinion that pulling out will
 be chickenshit? The American soldiers in Iraq disagree with you.
 Are they Chickenshit?

 In 1965 I was driving somewhere, can't recall where, when I
 picked up a hitchhiker. He was a soldier just back from Nam. We
 talked about it, and he told me Nam was hell.

 Something like 6 months later I was working with a recently
 discharged sailor, who had never been outside the states. He was
 an 'airdale', a sailor who worked on aircraft.

 I mentioned to him that soldier, and what he had said. That
 sailor, who had never been outside the states, who would never
 have been in Vietnam if he had stayed in, called that combat
 veteran a coward.

 He had left the navy because had he stayed his next assignment
 would have been on an aircraft carrier, and he said the flight
 deck of a carrier was the most dangerous job in the Navy.

 Yet he called a combat vet a coward.

 I look at all of you who trash those who want us out of Iraq,
 and who want to keep others over there fighting, the same as
 that sailor. And esp those of you who never said one word about
 Witt saying Wilson's service in the Korean war made him a
 coward.

 And that goes especially for Hardegree, whose life seems to
 revolve around him being a "retired army major". Yet he has
 never said one word against any who trash the honorable service
 of other veterans.

 RC> Whether or not the war is just or not, too late, we either
 RC> see it through or we let the boil fester and be forced to
 RC> revisit it in the future, see Afghanistan after the Soviets
 RC> left.

 What makes you think we *CAN* fix it? The failure in Afghanistan
 was not that we didn't keep troops there after the Soviets
 pulled out, we never had troops there. The failure was that we
 did not provide support and aid to rebuild. We can do that in
 Iraq without keeping an army there. And the Bush administration
 is demanding a treaty that involves permenant basing of troops
 in Iraq. That they find intolerable.

 If you keep trying to treat the Iraqis as children who need your
 supervision, who need you to raise them to your standards, all
 you will do is earn more war and death.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Bin Laden would not threaten the US if Bush had killed him the first time.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a