The arithmetic of patriotic battle

[Mapraputa Is]

PS: Isn't that the truth. Care to do the arithmetic on which country has had more nonsense posted about it?
The USA has. That's why I am sympathetic with Joe's "70-year-old war plans, 35-year-old wars..." post.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
In the end, we just have two different perspectives, and who is to say which one is more valid and makes more sense?
Why, I am, of course. Because it's not about some sort of magical fixed point from which validity can be measured, but instead it's how valid the discussion is to me. And for me, that's entirely based on whether there is anything useful to be derived...

Ok, just so I'm clear here: Joe, are you suggesting that you are the arbiter of what is meaningful and useful in a topic like this one? That your determination of what is meaningful and useful in a conversation is a necessary element of it?
I find it a little bizarre that you insert yourself in a conversation like and seem to try and direct its discussion to whether you approve of it. It's not such a strange thing, I suppose: I get people in class from time to time who forget there are other students in the room and sometimes try to preclude discussion on points that don't interest them.
But I've not heard anyone speak to the motivation so plainly as you have. It really sounds to me like you're trying to say this topic is probably better of shutting down because you don't find meaning it. That part is pretty strange.

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Just trying to figure out what this thread is about. There was initially a comment about Iraq, but it's devolved into a rehashing of Vietnam.

Step 1: Attack (Vietnam)
Step 2: Argue that it's irrelevant to debate the merits of attacking because you can't undo the fact that you've already attacked. (You are here, Joe)
Step 3: Proceed to Step 1 (Iraq)
It's naive to invade Iraq and expect that people aren't going to bring up the obvious correlations with Vietnam. If you were really concerned about preventing rehashed discussions of America's failures in Vietnam, then you shouldn't have given the rest of the world such an obvious excuse to dredge them up again. Imagine the Germans opening up concentration camps for Turks and then protesting indignantly when people drew parallels to the Jewish Holocaust: "Oh, are you going to bring that up again?"

Alan
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]

[Joe Pluta]

Ok, just so I'm clear here: Joe, are you suggesting that you are the arbiter of what is meaningful and useful in a topic like this one?
Why yes, as far as I'm concerned! It's entirely up to me to determine what I think is useful. For example, what you find meaningful is usually pretty useless to me.

I find it a little bizarre that you insert yourself in a conversation like and seem to try and direct its discussion to whether you approve of it.
I'm not trying to direct anything! All I asked was a simple question - what does Agent Orange have to do with Iraq? The fact that you take offense to my question really says a lot more about you than me. This is some sort of alpha male thing with you, not me. I just drop in to see how the weird half lives. I have baby smiles to occupy most of my day .

It's not such a strange thing, I suppose: I get people in class from time to time who forget there are other students in the room and sometimes try to preclude discussion on points that don't interest them.
No, Mike, that's you. You're the one constantly trying to "take charge" of the conversation, such as landing on Jason with all fours. I really don't need to pee on anyone's bushes. Y'all want to continue to talk about Agent Orange, that's fine. I just dropped in my two cents.

But I've not heard anyone speak to the motivation so plainly as you have.
And yet, you go and get it wrong! All I said was I didn't think the statement was relevant. I'm not trying to stop you from talking.

It really sounds to me like you're trying to say this topic is probably better of shutting down because you don't find meaning it.
Since I never said anything like that, then I can only guess it sounds like that to you after being filtered through your own Napoleonic character defects, dude. Again, I'm not trying to cause trouble. If you'll notice, I'm not the one getting threads shut down. In fact, if anything the discussions here in MD ave gotten MORE rancorous since I stopped posting so much. That's not direct cause and effect, but you certainly can't insinuate that I'm the cause of the intemperance around here.

That part is pretty strange.
What's strange is that the moderators let you do what you do. You must be soemthing special behind closed doors, because here in the open your comments really don't bring much to the table. They're neither particularly insightful, nor even correct in many cases. They're just mean-spirited.

Joe

[Joe Pluta]

I normally ignore your mutterings, Alan, but this one brought up an interesting point.
Alan: If you were really concerned about preventing rehashed discussions of America's failures in Vietnam, then you shouldn't have given the rest of the world such an obvious excuse to dredge them up again.
The "you" in "you shouldn't have" either means me personally or America. Sicne you can't possibly think I started the war in Iraq, it must mean America. And since you refer to "America" as you, then that means you don't consider yourself a part of America.
Just wanted to make sure that's clear. It clears up a couple of final issues in my mind.
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

JP: I'm not trying to direct anything! All I asked was a simple question - what does Agent Orange have to do with Iraq? The fact that you take offense to my question really says a lot more about you than me.
ME: I don't take offense to it, I'm just puzzled by what you said. I could say more about what puzzled me but if you're not interested that's fine.
JP: You're the one constantly trying to "take charge" of the conversation
ME: In topics that I start, I suppose I do expect to guide the discussion a bit, since I am obviously interested in it. Beyond that, if you're annoyed by my posts, it's easy enough to scroll past them. It's easy enough to comment on them.
I do think there's a difference between entering a discussion with a point to add (or refute), and entering it simply to wonder aloud why people think it's worthwhile to discuss the topic. That's what I seemed to be hearing from your posts and I asked you because it wasn't clear to me. I could have scrolled past it, but Map expressed a certain degree of annoyance in a chat, and I thought I'd take charge. I mean ask.
JP: And yet, you go and get it wrong! All I said was I didn't think the statement was relevant. I'm not trying to stop you from talking.
ME: So I got it wrong. I asked a question and I said "it seems to me..." Certainly, if you view me as eternally hostile, then I can see how my "seems like" appears to be so much rhetorical insinuation and nothing else. It's also one of the advisories we've been going by as moderators. That is, as long as we emphasize the aspect of perceived meaning in these questions, we can possibly avoid the heated exchanges that might arise from, for example, "Joe, why are you trying to destroy certain topics?" which leaves little room for anything except head-butting. Max in particular has asked me to stick to a more conciliatory tone. I'm trying that, and you still hear something else. Oh well!
Gotta tell ya, though, when you say stuff like "I just pop in to see how the weird half is doing" it doesn't sound to me like you're upset with just me, and it really doesn't sound humorous. It sounds to me like by "weird" you mean people who talk about stuff you don't think should be talked about.
And while I'm sure you'll tell me I am wrong on that point, I am satisfied in reviewing your posts here that I didn't just pull meaning out of thin air. It doesn't mean I'm right, either. But I don't feel I am utterly without foundation on this point. The rest was just a question to you; thank you for answering it.
ME: It really sounds to me like you're trying to say this topic is probaly better off shutting down because you don't find meaning it.
JP: Since I never said anything like that, then I can only guess it sounds like that to you
ME: Er, right. That what it sounded like to me. I asked for a clarification because what I inferred from your posts wasn't very attractive. Thank you for clearing that up as well.
JP: after being filtered through your own Napoleonic character defects, dude. Again, I'm not trying to cause trouble.
ME: It just boggles the imagination how these two statements can be put right next to each other. How is characterizing anyone in those terms consistent with not trying to cause trouble?
JP: you certainly can't insinuate that I'm the cause of the intemperance around here.
ME: What I meant to ask, more or less, was whether you were trying to derail the conversation by declaring irrelevance in various forms. I see from Alan Labout's post that I am not alone on this observation, so I think it's a fair question. A little tough, maybe less than nice, but Max or EFH can speak to that. And I could have phrased it in a more conciliatory way. I feel now that you've demonstrated it would not have mattered.
JP: What's strange is that the moderators let you do what you do. You must be soemthing special behind closed doors, because here in the open your comments really don't bring much to the table.
ME: So on one hand I'm the one getting threads shut down, and at the same time I'm getting away with murder. That sounds to me like a pair of accusations that are mutually exclusive. Perhaps others lend their observations to this point and help us all to see more clearly. I would like that.
I'll be the first to say I've challenged your points in multiple topics, Joe, and you've made it clear you don't like it. But I don't believe you've ever responded to views I've contributed because they have no meaning. On that point, I have to be direct and say this does not sound like a credible assertion to me. If I am somehow both the Made Man of JavaRanch and the one who gets threads shut down, I can only infer you don't like it when I challenge certain views.
JP: They're neither particularly insightful, nor even correct in many cases. They're just mean-spirited.
ME: So you really, really, really don't like it when I challenge certain points of view. That's what I'm able to get from all this.
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

The "you" in "you shouldn't have" either means me personally or America. Sicne you can't possibly think I started the war in Iraq, it must mean America. Joe

Oh, but I do think you started this war, Joe. You and Jason both. It's your war. Or would you have us believe that voters in America have no actual say in (or responsibility for) the actions of the leaders they elected?
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]

[Warren Dew]

Come on guys, would it be possible to omit the personal discussion? When I take a break from coding, I really don't want to be limited to reading about who the best looking Hollywood actors/actresses are.

[Joe Pluta]

It sounds to me like by "weird" you mean people who talk about stuff you don't think should be talked about.
How in the world did you come up with this? This is quite the bizarre leap. I never once said anything about what "should" and "shouldn't" be talked about, never hinted nor implied. You made that up completely out of your own subconscious, dude, and I have to say, it's looking to be a scary place.

And while I'm sure you'll tell me I am wrong on that point, I am satisfied in reviewing your posts here that I didn't just pull meaning out of thin air. It doesn't mean I'm right, either. But I don't feel I am utterly without foundation on this point. The rest was just a question to you; thank you for answering it.
Oh. My. God. This statement simply defies rational discussion. You know for a fact that I said nothing like what you're implying, you know I'm going to say that, and yet you still try to pre-emptively say that you're right. I have never read posts that scream out "I must be right!" more than yours. This really is some sort of bizarre alpha male thing. Wow.

It just boggles the imagination how these two statements can be put right next to each other. How is characterizing anyone in those terms consistent with not trying to cause trouble?
Your ability to complain when someone else follows your behavioral guidelines is stunning. Explain to me why your using the word "whining" over and over again is not causing trouble, and my using the word "Napoleonic" once is.

So on one hand I'm the one getting threads shut down, and at the same time I'm getting away with murder. That sounds to me like a pair of accusations that are mutually exclusive.
Nope. It simply means that you've been given a way lon gleash here, but the more you get away with, the more crap you pull, until ultimately someone has to shut you down. You need boundaries, man.

I can only infer you don't like it when I challenge certain views.

That's so funny.
Once again, your inferences aern't even in the same galaxy, dude. What I don't like about your posts is the supercilious, condescending air of them. Your posts don't "challenge" anything, at least not without using terms like "whining" and otherwise trying to belittle people.
I think I've been very clear that I don't get upset with what you say, but with how you say it. You deliberately choose the demeaning word when a neutral one will do. Your posts are the quintessence of argument by intimidation.

Anyway, if this is your idea of being conciliatory, then you might consider a little more practice.

Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Oh, but I do think you started this war, Joe. You and Jason both.
Oh gosh, I didn't think you were going to actually try to worm your way out of this, but since you are, I'll review your statement once.
Imagine the Germans opening up concentration camps for Turks and then protesting indignantly when people drew parallels to the Jewish Holocaust: "Oh, are you going to bring that up again?"
In that analogy, you mentioned "the Germans", which without any further qualification meant all Germans (not those who voted for any specific administration). Simple extension means that by "you", you meant "the Americans". It's clear that's what you meant. And if it's not, then you really need to take some writing classes.
Anyway, I'm not going to spend any more time rebutting hypocrisy. Back to ignoring you, Alan.
Joe

[Jim Yingst]

Well, this seems to have gone one enough without people cooling down. (Thanks to those who tried though.) I too would like to see some political discussion in MD - but far too often it's degenerating into name-calling, generalizations about the opposition, and general ickiness. (In those cases where it didn't simply start out that way.) I'm pulling the plug on this one.