Against All Enemies.........

[Yogi]

Excerpts from "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" by Richard A. Clarke

Published: March 23, 2004


On Preparing for Other Attacks

  I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.

  On the morning of the 12th D.O.D.'s focus was already beginning to shift from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. was explicit now that Al Qaeda was guilty of the attacks, but Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy, was not persuaded. It was too sophisticated and complicated an operation, he said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself, without a state sponsor — Iraq must have been helping them.

On Links to Saddam Hussein

  Later, on the evening of the 12th, I left the video conferencing center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all . . . but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

  I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

  "I know, I know, but — see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred——"

  "Absolutely, we will look — again.` I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. `But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen.`

  "Look into Iraq, Saddam," the president said testily and left us.

On Condoleezza Rice

  As I briefed Rice on Al Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, "Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organizations with cells in over 50 countries, including the U.S."

  Rice looked skeptical. She focused on the fact that my office staff was large by N.S.C. standards (12 people) and did operational things, including domestic security issues. She said, "The N.S.C. looks just as it did when I worked here a few years ago, except for your operation. It's all new. It does domestic things, and it is not just doing policy. . . . I'm not sure we want to keep all of this in the N.S.C."



Richard E. Clarke.http://www.securityfocus.com/images/news/clarke.jpg

Is he a Rat walking in now elections are coming or is he the messiah freeing us from the meathead.......


Discuss.......


Yogi

[j2k4]

The "Rat" option would be the proper selection.

Trust me on this one. ;)

Also:

If anyone is watching the 9/11 hearings on anything less than a live feed, forget it; the consequent reportage will be a contextual mess.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
The "Rat" option would be the proper selection.

Trust me on this one.

I don't mean to question your trustworthiness but could you offer some reasons for the "rat selection"?

From what I've heard the guy has worked in the security services for over 20 years, has served under 4 different administrations. I've also seen an interview with him where he explicitly ruled out a career in politics and has said he doesn't endorse either candidate in the upcoming election.

Even if you don't like what he's saying you can't deny the fact that he's dedicated a large proportion of his life to defending you and your loved ones. Yet now he's a 'rat'?

Unless the man is telling blatant lies, surely this is the best time for the American public to know what's going on inside the Whitehouse before they make their decision?

[j2k4]

Here is what sways me:

1. After being fired, he send a glowing letter to GWB praising his (GWB's) committment to fighting terrorism, and also his approach to dealing with the problems inherent in doing so (I gather this last had to do with diplomatic matters).

2. It arises that, when the Department of Homeland Security was formed, Clarke lobbied hard for the number 2 position there behind Tom Ridge.

When he was not chosen for the job, his pique was (according to admittedly anecdotal recollections) described as being of "legendary" proportion.

This indicates to me that he has a rampant ego/temperament problem, which fits my supposition rather well.

3. Timing, timing, timing.

There is an election just around the corner; and it happens that, along with Paul O'Neill and a few others, that Clarke is just the latest in a line of opportunists hoping to perhaps be rewarded with a post of some sort in a democrat administration.


Sorry, lefty-that's a rat in my eyes. ;)

[leftism]

Interesting.

Could you provide sources for your first two points please?

I'll have to take issue with point number 3 though. He's explicitly stated that he will not take a job in any administration and that he doesn't endorse either candidate.

I've seen a lot of 'spin' coming from both directions so I'll delay my judgement on this one.

However... his allegations do seem to make a lot of sense and considering the guy's worked with every President since Reagan I find it hard to believe that he's motivated by politics, is so incompetent he got fired and has never had his ego damaged in the course of duty before.

[dwightfry]

In an interview he said that the book was planned to be released 3 months ago but the whitehouse wouldn't let it until now. So the timing was the caused by the whitehouse, not him.

....or so he says.

(BTW, I believe he's freeing us from a meathead)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism@24 March 2004 - 10:48
Interesting.

Could you provide sources for your first two points please?


I'll let you do that yourself, lefty.

There is, however, a late-breaking bit of news which bears rather heavily on Mr. Clarke, his book, and his imminent testimony.

I hope the commissioners get a chance to review this before they entertain Mr. Clarke this afternoon.

I'll even provide a link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

This is, to say the least, very interesting.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-leftism

Interesting.

Could you provide sources for your first two points please?



I&#39;ll let you do that yourself, lefty.[/b][/quote]

It&#39;s your responsibility to back up your points, not mine.

[vidcc]

Just a theory here.
We make a big thing about people that speak out after they are "fired" and often take their speaking out as nothing more than sour eggs and revenge.
Could it be that people do it at this time because they are finally able to.? One has a duty when one is employed to not harm ones employer. I am sure there are many people that have positions in government that disagree with many things that go on but do not air those views because of professionalism in their work.
As to timing..yes i agree...but people are fickle and forgetful so the lead up to an election would be a good time. It&#39;s funny how many forget tax increases at the beginning of a term if they get a reduction just before the election ;)

The factual base behind his "story " will be open to interpretaion, believed by some, despised by others.
funny though, if someone states how wonderful things are we love them...if they suggest that things are less than perfect we despise them. Yet it is only because people draw attention to the seedier side of life that we can improve.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+24 March 2004 - 12:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 24 March 2004 - 12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@
<!--QuoteBegin-leftism

Interesting.

Could you provide sources for your first two points please?



I&#39;ll let you do that yourself, lefty.

It&#39;s your responsibility to back up your points, not mine.[/b][/quote]
Did you check the link or not, lefty?

If so, and you care to comment, that&#39;s fine.

If not, I&#39;ll leave the thread to you. ;)

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
Did you check the link or not, lefty?

If so, and you care to comment, that&#39;s fine.

If not, I&#39;ll leave the thread to you.

One thing at a time j2... :rolleyes: . If he was fired and is acting out of pique then I think that should be dealt with and not swept under the carpet.

I asked for your source that claimed he was fired. You refused to provide it and as far as I can tell are continuing to refuse to provide it.

In the link you posted it says he resigned.

Which is it? Fired or resigned?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by leftism@24 March 2004 - 11:49
In the link you posted it says he resigned.

Which is it? Fired or resigned?
it&#39;s kind of a debatable point with people in this sort of position.....they are not as a rule "fired" rather invited to resign. One could argue the same thing in reality but it&#39;s just political speak.
Of course he may very well have decided to resign because he wanted to persue a career elsewhere ( as an author perhaps :D )

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+24 March 2004 - 13:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 24 March 2004 - 13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Did you check the link or not, lefty?

If so, and you care to comment, that&#39;s fine.

If not, I&#39;ll leave the thread to you.

One thing at a time j2... :rolleyes: . If he was fired and is acting out of pique then I think that should be dealt with and not swept under the carpet.

I asked for your source that claimed he was fired. You refused to provide it and as far as I can tell are continuing to refuse to provide it.

In the link you posted it says he resigned.

Which is it? Fired or resigned?[/b][/quote]
Odd.

I thought the link was Clarke&#39;s hosannah to Bush and his efforts against terrorism, which would have the large effect of giving lie to much of what Clarke says in his book.

As to the rest of my posting, these are my conclusions, based on my thoughts, based on information that I have gleaned from various sources.

I didn&#39;t have to google anything to arrive at my assertion.

Here&#39;s a better idea, lefty-go stream the video of Clarke&#39;s testimony so you can watch it live (he is testifying now), rather than rely on the relative deficiency of googling.

You may arrive at the same viewpoint I have, or find that defending Clarke is untenable.

In either case, that which you presume to lie "under the rug" will be of no further consequence. ;)

[leftism]

The link you provided doesn&#39;t mention Iraq at all. The most damning (imho) of Clarke&#39;s allegations is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq, after 9/11 and wanted Clarke to find a connection between Saddam and the attacks even though he was told there was none.

If you look at the top of that interview you&#39;ll see that it says "Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003."

Thus your sources contradict each other. Was he fired or did he resign? This is an important factor in judging his motivation. After all, it was the first point you raised with the word "fired" highlighted in bold. Yet now you say it is of no consequence?

All you have to do is provide the source(s) that claimed he was fired so the rest of us can judge their merit for ourselves. Why are you refusing to do so?

Btw I&#39;ve searched for "clarke testimony video stream" on google but nothings come up. If someone can provide a link I&#39;d appreciate it.

[J'Pol]

I have no opinion on this subject, before today I didn&#39;t know the difference between this chap and a bar of soap.

Here is a link which paints him in quite a disingenuous light. I have no knowledge of the accuracy or relevance of the material, however it is interesting reading and makes what appear to be decent points regarding his motives.

Judge for yourself

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12673

[leftism]

Can&#39;t say I&#39;m too impressed by that article J&#39;Pol.


We now know that this dogma was false, and Iraq did in fact support and collaborate with al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups.

:blink:

It also refers to him as a "clintonite" and totally ignores the fact that he&#39;s worked with every President since Reagan.

This is why I&#39;m undecided. Too much spin coming from partisans on both sides of the fence.

[J'Pol]

Like I said, I really have no opinion or prior interest in this. There are several things however which strike me as worthy of note. These primarily relate to whether he has aligned himself to a particular candidate, the timing of the release, the fact that CBS appear to be owned by the same company which published the book itself.

My gut tells me that there is more to this than someone releasing a book. I await developments with interest. Once again this board has introduced me to a subject which otherwise I would not have bothered with.

[j2k4]

Lefty-

You overlooked a very important fact:

The link I provided was to a transcript of a background interview given by Clarke which took place in August of 2002.

What you apparently missed is made obvious by your statement thus:

Quote: leftism
The link you provided doesn&#39;t mention Iraq at all. The most damning (imho) of Clarke&#39;s allegations is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq, after 9/11 and wanted Clarke to find a connection between Saddam and the attacks even though he was told there was none.

Clarke&#39;s information was in reference to GWB&#39;s policy moves as to terrorism beginning January, 2001, literally days after taking office.

9/11 was still over 7 months away&#33;


In light of this duly referenced FACT, I suggest you re-assess your posting, for it is flawed. ;)

BTW-

I thought the topic was the man, his book and his credibility.

What, specifically, are you banging on about Iraq for?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@24 March 2004 - 14:55
I have no opinion on this subject, before today I didn&#39;t know the difference between this chap and a bar of soap.

Here is a link which paints him in quite a disingenuous light. I have no knowledge of the accuracy or relevance of the material, however it is interesting reading and makes what appear to be decent points regarding his motives.

Judge for yourself

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12673
Another interesting link, J&#39;Pol. ;)

Methinks Mr. Clarke&#39;s credibility problems are manifold.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by leftism@

The link you provided doesn&#39;t mention Iraq at all. The most damning (imho) of Clarke&#39;s allegations is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq, after 9/11 and wanted Clarke to find a connection between Saddam and the attacks even though he was told there was none.

9/11 was still over 7 months away&#33;


In light of this duly referenced FACT, I suggest you re-assess your posting, for it is flawed.

BTW-

I thought the topic was the man, his book and his credibility.

What, specifically, are you banging on about Iraq for?
[/b]

J2k4. Its not difficult.

The main allegation Clarke has made is that Bush was obsessed with Iraq after 9/11, demanding that he find a connection that didn&#39;t exist. That is a major part of his book is it not?

That article you posted doesn&#39;t mention this at all, because as you stated 9/11 hadn&#39;t happened yet. That didn&#39;t pass me by ;)

All that article "proves" is that the guy didn&#39;t slag off his boss whilst he was still employed by him. How many whistle blowers do? It doesn&#39;t mean he&#39;s wrong.

Now for the 3rd (or is it the 4th time) are you going to provide us with the source of your info that said he was fired (you did put it in bold text so I assume it was important to you)? Or should I just put it down to a figment of your imagination?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Another interesting link, J&#39;Pol.&nbsp;

Methinks Mr. Clarke&#39;s credibility problems are manifold. [/quote]

If you read it properly you&#39;ll see it&#39;s extremely biased and factually incorrect as I have already pointed out. Al-Queda in cahoots with Iraq? Look out for the flying pig, it&#39;s behind you :)

The more I see of this the more I think Clarkes on to something. The partisans are out in full force and are ready to do battle. ;)

[J'Pol]

I have always been of the opinion that the previous ruling regime in Iraq and the top people ( I refrain from using leaders as that type of cellular "organisation" do not have leaders per se) in Al Qaeda co-operated with each other. I also believe that Iraq provided funding for them.

I know others feel entirely differently. In an attempt to avoid any protracted debate on the subject, let me say at this juncture this is merely an opinion based more on feeling than fact. I cannot provide links to any website which supports this view. I am sure they are there, I just don&#39;t know the URLs.

[leftism]

I have always been of the opinion that the previous ruling regime in Iraq and the top people ( I refrain from using leaders as that type of cellular "organisation" do not have leaders per se) in Al Qaeda co-operated with each other. I also believe that Iraq provided funding for them.

I know others feel entirely differently. In an attempt to avoid any protracted debate on the subject, let me say at this juncture this is merely an opinion based more on feeling than fact.

Your entitled to your opinion J&#39;Pol but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s likely for a number of reasons.

If this were the case Bush and Blair would be screaming it from the rooftops. Saddam also brutally oppressed many Muslims while he was in power.

If there were any solid evidence linking Al-Queda to Iraq you&#39;d probably need to look no further than www.whitehouse.gov or www.number-10.gov.uk .

[Rat Faced]

They did have support in Iraq...

In the north of the country.. ie The Kurds



I still find it incredible that Saddam is being linked by some to the Allies of the people he was supressing....


Someone remarked once:

"You dont need to be friends, just coz you wanna f*ck the same Bitch"

That seems to be the situation re: Saddam, Bin Laden and the USA.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism@25 March 2004 - 11:27

Your entitled to your opinion J&#39;Pol...
Hmmmmmmm. :huh:

[Rat Faced]

Lifting the Shroud

March 23, 2004

By PAUL KRUGMAN



From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration&#39;s secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration&#39;s version of events, not ask awkward questions.

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.

It&#39;s important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife&#39;s career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system&#39;s chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration&#39;s prescription drug plan.

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush&#39;s former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."

On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration&#39;s top official on counterterrorism.) It&#39;s "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.

Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke&#39;s character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.

Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn&#39;t even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested &#036;1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)

Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration&#39;s strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about &#036;10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.

Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.

Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks&#39; dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it&#39;s unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it&#39;s unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration&#39;s penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.

So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.


Source..... New York Times

[j2k4]

So-

Your mind is utterly closed to any other possibility, yes?

Something worth adding:

60 Minutes is a Sunday night newsmagazine which airs on CBS here in the U.S.

CBS is considered to be (by myself and people like me) a liberal media source.

The show is divided into three segments of more-or-less equal length including commercials.

Rare indeed is the case when an individual or a subject is alloted 2/3 of the entire hour; the last time I remember it happening was during a show devoted to 9/11, and in that case the entire hour was, if memory serves, given over to that subject.

Mr.Clarke garnered two segments of the show on which he appeared, and, given the subject matter, perhaps this fact does not warrant additional note, unless...

...you are aware of the conflict-of-interest represented by CBS&#39;s fawning treatment of Clarke combined with it&#39;s concurrent interest in the publishing house handling Clarke&#39;s vaunted book.

Check it out; google it if you like.

I didn&#39;t do that, as I don&#39;t live, die, or try to hang an argument on the crap one finds on the &#39;net.

There are other places to get information. ;)

[Rat Faced]

I aint judging..

Like J&#39;Pol, i dont know the man and never heard of him until this thread, truth be known.

Im merely putting down what i came across on my travels....which wasnt a search for info about this :P


I cant stand Bush, which is well known...for stuff i do know about, however as i have said before US Domestic politics is way beyond me.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 March 2004 - 12:16
I aint judging..

Like J&#39;Pol, i dont know the man and never heard of him until this thread, truth be known.

Im merely putting down what i came across on my travels....which wasnt a search for info about this :P


I cant stand Bush, which is well known...for stuff i do know about, however as i have said before US Domestic politics is way beyond me.
It is beyond me also, but I can speak with some knowledge of it.

Someday, I hope to be able to speak of it with the authority of, say, leftism.

:lol:

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by leftism@

Your entitled to your opinion J&#39;Pol...


Hmmmmmmm.
[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Someday, I hope to be able to speak of it with the authority of, say, leftism.[/quote]

Can you believe that someone this old...

Image Resized
[img]http://server6.uploadit.org/files/clocker-Visitpost.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://server6.uploadit.org/files/clocker-Visitpost.jpg')

is this petty and immature?

You must lead a very pathetic and lonely life j2, you have my deepest sympathies :)

[ilw]

is that serious and if so which one??

[leftism]

Originally posted by ilw
is that serious and if so which one??

Yup it&#39;s serious. That pic is from the "proximity achieved" thread in Talk Club when clocker visited j2k4.

I&#39;m not 100% certain but I think the guy on the left is j2k4.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by leftism+30 March 2004 - 00:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 30 March 2004 - 00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-leftism@

Your entitled to your opinion J&#39;Pol...


Hmmmmmmm.
[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Someday, I hope to be able to speak of it with the authority of, say, leftism.[/quote]

Can you believe that someone this old...

Image Resized
Image Resized
[img]http://server6.uploadit.org/files/clocker-Visitpost.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> (http://server6.uploadit.org/files/clocker-Visitpost.jpg)

is this petty and immature?

You must lead a very pathetic and lonely life j2, you have my deepest sympathies :) [/b][/quote]
Those who know me well can confirm this, if they so choose. I care not a jot either way. I rarely post anything which is blatant and unambiguous, however the above post by leftism is one of those rare occasions.

You Sir are a prick. You are nothing more than an obvious troll. My only regret is that I could not find the strength within myself to ignore you. I apologise to those for whom I respect for this failing. Unfortunately I cannot promise that it will not happen again. Unless of course someone else can guarantee that you will never post on this board again.

[leftism]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol
You Sir are a prick. You are nothing more than an obvious troll.

j2k4 initiates an unprovoked personal attack.. I defend myself and I&#39;m the troll?

Whatever you say J&#39;Pol.... :rolleyes:

[ilw]

just one question, why does the person on the left seem to be in the nip, looks a bit... well, nippy for that sort of casual dresswear. I&#39;d be dressed up warm :ph34r:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@29 March 2004 - 21:13
Those who know me well can confirm this, if they so choose. I care not a jot either way. I rarely post anything which is blatant and unambiguous, however the above post by leftism is one of those rare occasions.

You Sir are a prick. You are nothing more than an obvious troll. My only regret is that I could not find the strength within myself to ignore you. I apologise to those for whom I respect for this failing. Unfortunately I cannot promise that it will not happen again. Unless of course someone else can guarantee that you will never post on this board again.
I&#39;ve said this before. It&#39;s easy to ignore him.
The thing is to consistently ignore him and do it en masse.

1234, blackerdays, leftism

BLACKBALLED http://www.gamespy.com/avatars/av/AT/at461.gif

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I&#39;ve said this before. It&#39;s easy to ignore him.
The thing is to consistently ignore him and do it en masse.

1234, blackerdays, leftism

BLACKBALLED [/b]

Right on cue... we have Busyman :)

Master of the "you&#39;re a girl and I&#39;m not listening to you lalalalalalala" strategy.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I&#39;ve ignored her entirely. It works for me. [/quote]

For someone who is intent on ignoring me, you have a strange habit of following me around. Your obsessed&#33;

[Removed]

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism@29 March 2004 - 19:32

j2k4 initiates an unprovoked personal attack..
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You&#39;re kidding, right?

You might try a chemist, lefty; perhaps an ointment for your rash.

ATTACK?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@29 March 2004 - 20:01
just one question, why does the person on the left seem to be in the nip, looks a bit... well, nippy for that sort of casual dresswear. I&#39;d be dressed up warm :ph34r:
It&#39;s not so bad, Ian.

We&#39;re a hardy bunch, here.

It was about 25F; not bad at all.

Big difference between +25F and -25F, though.

The latter would at least require shoes. ;)

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
You&#39;re kidding, right?

You might try a chemist, lefty; perhaps an ointment for your rash.

ATTACK?

Ah right. You don&#39;t count unprovoked petty OT insults as an attack.

Retire to your bridge j2, the three billy goats will be along soon enough. ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+30 March 2004 - 00:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 30 March 2004 - 00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
You&#39;re kidding, right?

You might try a chemist, lefty; perhaps an ointment for your rash.

ATTACK?

Ah right. You don&#39;t count unprovoked petty OT insults as an attack.

[/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

You&#39;re still kidding, aren&#39;t you?

Insult?

Good grief&#33;

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
You&#39;re still kidding, aren&#39;t you?

Insult?

Good grief&#33;

So how do you define taking pieces of someones post and then making sarcastic remarks?

I think trolling is quite accurate, don&#39;t you?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+30 March 2004 - 01:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 30 March 2004 - 01:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
You&#39;re still kidding, aren&#39;t you?

Insult?

Good grief&#33;

So how do you define taking pieces of someones post and then making sarcastic remarks?

I think trolling is quite accurate, don&#39;t you?[/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sarcasm?

Surely you jest.

Some people are born to troll, and do it well.

Not me.

All I catch are garbage fish. ;)

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
Sarcasm?

Surely you jest.

Some people are born to troll, and do it well.

Not me.

All I catch are garbage fish.

Well.. It was fun for a while but your getting tedious now.

I think I&#39;ll just look at your photo and read your last few posts a few more times.

It puts things in perspective. ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism+30 March 2004 - 00:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 30 March 2004 - 00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-leftism@

Your entitled to your opinion J&#39;Pol...


Hmmmmmmm.
[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Someday, I hope to be able to speak of it with the authority of, say, leftism.[/quote]

Can you believe that someone this old...


picture of J2 and clocker

is this petty and immature?

You must lead a very pathetic and lonely life j2, you have my deepest sympathies :)[/b][/quote]
You&#39;ve stepped over the line of propriety here.

Posting personal photos takes a certain amount of bravery on an open forum as cowards may use them in an attempt at mockery. Cowards who hide behind walls of personal isolation and take shots at what people have left vulnerable.

Perhaps your photo is in order. It seems you don&#39;t understand what is appropriate.

As for the rest of your post, J2 is a married man with children, posing with a friend who happened to travel over 1000 miles by car to visit him and who rarely agrees with anything he has to say. I also get along with the overstuffed shirt (well "shirtless" would more appropriate here).

Imagine people who can get along, who are divided in both political and religious beliefs. It means that there is something more to forming a friendship. Sometimes it is about establishing a personal connection.

J2 demonstrates some balance in his forum life. He can be serious, he can lend advice, he can be funny, or he might just relate a story about his life. He doesn&#39;t stay locked in the "serious" forum, as all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

You remember me saying that you almost appeared "human"? That is what I meant. You stay positioned here, you give no insight into who you are, your age, height, marital status, interests or even a sense of humor. You are pretty well versed in the few topics you know but youre poorly fleshed out as a "human".

You would seem more likely to be the lonely white male living in an apartment with this forum as his probe into the real world. Not saying you are, but statistically more likely, than a married man posting about a social occassion.

So from your isloated little perch in the World News Forum, we find you have ventured into the lounge, where people do expose themselves a little bit, and you have smuggled back this little token as a barb for your thread.

It makes me wonder, does Lefty often look into the lounge at the common man, reading threads but not wanting to post or afraid to post. Or was it a simple J2 post search that happened to uncover this picture? Who knows, as Lefty is nothing but a name.

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You&#39;ve stepped over the line of propriety here.

Posting personal photos takes a certain amount of bravery on an open forum as cowards may use them in an attempt at mockery. Cowards who hide behind walls of personal isolation and take shots at what people have left vulnerable.[/b]

Oh please, enough of the cheesy melodrama.

In this thread J2 decided to follow me around, take snippets of my posts and make dumbass childish remarks. In some circles this is known as trolling. I posted his public photo so everyone could see that this idiotic kindergarten behaviour was coming from a fully grown adult.

He provoked me and got a response. The way you lay out that soap opera, it sounds like I was lying in wait and ambushed him.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
He doesn&#39;t stay locked in the "serious" forum, as all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

You remember me saying that you almost appeared "human"? That is what I meant. You stay positioned here, you give no insight into who you are, your age, height, marital status, interests or even a sense of humor. You are pretty well versed in the few topics you know but youre poorly fleshed out as a "human".
[/quote]

Do a little more research hobbes. This is not the only area of the filesharingtalk forum that I post in.

You are in no position to judge whether I&#39;m "poorly fleshed out as a human" because you&#39;re not in possession of all the facts required to make such a judgement. I don&#39;t know your age, height or marital status either and if you visited other areas of the board asides from this section you would already know my interests and career path.

You and J&#39;Pol really make me laugh when you get into this mode. You set yourselves up as fair and balanced unbiased arbitrators when the truth is that your just sticking up for a friend and are acting in a totally partisan manner.

I&#39;ll take you seriously when you start handing out this judgement to all felons and not just those who refuse to take bullshit from one of your friends. If you were as fair and honourable as you would have me believe your post would have been something along the lines of "While I appreciate J2 was trolling, your response was out of line".

Your one-sidedness doesn&#39;t do much for the "honourable hobbes" picture your trying to paint. I may not reveal myself like a guest on a cheap talkshow but at least I don&#39;t try to create a false image.

[hobbes]

Appparently you simply can&#39;t understand the boundaries of propriety. The unspoken line that is drawn between attacking a post or poster and insulting someone in real life.

Maybe we should make fun of someones heart condition, or anothers limp, or the pimple on that picture they posted.

If you can&#39;t make the distinction, then the situation is worse than I thought.

To call me one sided and less than honorable goes against everything I stand for at this forum and you will not find a single thread to support your accusation. This is no illusion Lefty, it is the truth. I remember EvilBagPuss said the exact same thing to me. He was going to expose me for the hypocrite I was. Well, he never posted again after that day, under that name, and never "chased me down".

The threat (http://http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=66129&view=findpost&p=527778)

Your words are merely that, hollow words, based in nothing. I agree with you, I agree with J2, I will disagree as well. It is issue related, not an agenda based.

Let us say that my comments were true, is it possible for you to concede that perhaps I may be giving you a little insight into your interpersonal short-comings.

If you want to believe that my post is merely motivated to defend a friend, then please add another brick to your wall of denial, because you certainly don&#39;t want to look around this board and see that there is no actual evidence of this.

As far as my attributes go, they are all out there. But more than my height, weight , job profile, I give people a insight in the type of person I am by relating experiences in my life and sometimes posting things that leave me a bit emotionally vulnerable. Posts like these help establish common ground between people which is more important than what job you do or government you favor. Your posts outside the forum offer little into the person and only acknowledge an interest in Linux and other computer related topics. I will spot you the use of a :) here and there and attraction to Kate Richie. Your other comments about linux and e-mule and such hardly help define you as a person.

Hobbes (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=106955&view=findpost&p=955168)

Here is something from last night, as an example.

The question I pose to you is this: How could I prove to you that I am not motivated by an agenda. How can I prove to you that this exact same post would not have appeared if you had crossed the line with anyother member. Since you and J2 battle all the time (and I am occasionally on your side of the argument) consider why this is the only time I have stepped in to say, "that&#39;s a bit over the line", it seems that I must be breaking my forum policy of honesty for you alone. Sorry, Lefty, it doesn&#39;t wash.

[j2k4]

I&#39;m beginning to get the impression I ought to tote my own barge, so here goes:

Lefty, you don&#39;t seem to realize that we are a community here, and it is increasingly apparent you don&#39;t aim to be a part of it.

I&#39;ll throw a few things out here-

You seek to give the impression of being "engaged", as to issues and events, and also seek to promote a left-wing point-of-view. (I gather this from your nickname; hope you don&#39;t feel I have taken any undue liberties in doing so)

You accuse others of following you around and picking on you or otherwise abusing you.

I ran a search on your total post activity; I noted about a dozen posts in other sections which were distinct efforts to be helpful.

I noted perhaps another dozen which could be classified, more-or-less, as pure commentary, observations on issues or events.

I believe you have started only one thread, and that was in WN&E.

The rest of your posting (ALL of it) is negative reactions to myself, Hobbes, J&#39;Pol, or a very few others.

I personally have the impression that it is you who follows me around.

I have commented on your commentary, I freely admit that; I have posted several times in attempts to cajole, poke, prod, and yes, I have insulted you too.

But I have never attacked you, and I have not entered into any go-&#39;rounds with you absent some sort of provocation.

You cannot make the case that anyone is "following you around"; remember: you have only started one thread.

I will state this very plainly:

Your function here (however unstated) is to face off with me.

You have some idea that I fancy myself the king of WN&E.

This is nothing short of laughable.

In any case, you apparently have some personal imperative to supplant me in this perceived capacity.

Well, here&#39;s how it is, lefty:

There is no king of WN&E; there are merely a collection of people who are issue-oriented and inclined to discuss and debate, and have a bit of fun doing it.

Some of us have been here from the go, and some are new; some come and go-it is a variable feast.

Now, your type is not a new phenomenon here; you have heard mention of EvilBagPuss, you have posted with 1234, and there have been a few others whose names I can&#39;t recall.

A few lasted quite a bit longer than you&#39;ve been here.

None of them have stayed, because they ultimately didn&#39;t fit in.

You and your methods are indistinguishable from them and theirs; this is why some here have occasionally accused you of merely being their most recent incarnation.

Such is neither here nor there, to me.

You come in with an agenda, and it doesn&#39;t work here.

I have a viewpoint, a philosophy, whatever you want to call it, that is unapologetically conservative.

I do not, however, have an agenda, and you won&#39;t find anyone here who supports such an opinion, either.

You, on the other hand, have only your agenda, and it doesn&#39;t serve you, you are it&#39;s slave.

Those who have posted in this thread most recently are friends of mine, however they are not posting as friends, but as arbitors of forum behavior.

I have been reticent to join in, because, as the focus of your pique, any post of mine would be open to interpretation as to motivation.

I feel that critical point has passed, however.

I will, then, say this for myself:

I wish you would drop this stance, pose, agenda, or whatever it is, and join us.

We are having much more fun than you are, and you don&#39;t seem to realize what you&#39;re missing.

Now, unless you can find an olive branch to lay across mine, I am done with you.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 April 2004 - 16:44
Now, unless you can find an olive branch to lay across mine, I am done with you.
Well.....it&#39;s about time. <_< :D

[sArA]

As an original member of WN&E I am saddened by the personal attack on J2.

I do not always agree with him and yet have always found him courteous and friendly. He is supportive when someone is in need and a veritable foe in a fight over principles. I would say this about several others too, Hobbes and I have locked horns on occasion too but I would NEVER insult him personally.

Anyone with the wit and guts to have an opinion and be willing to state it on a public forum should be respected and I respect you too Lefty for your articulate posts. However, your degeneration into petty personal attacks has left me reeling. I have been aware of your (in my opinion) over zealous arguments with J2 but then he has consistently risen to them and did not require others to defend him. I thought it was all just a bit of fun, the accepted heated banter of WN&E...

I was wrong in my assessment of you Lefty, I thought you a worthy contributor but have discovered that you are the type of person that resorts to personal insults when losing an argument...sad, thought you were better and brighter than that.

If it was up to me, I would put you on moderation

I feel I have now opened myself to an attack from you.

I am defending the principles of this forum, J2 requires no defence from me and could eat you for dinner with one hand tied behind his back&#33; :lol:

[ilw]

I have to disagree, obviously posting someones photo for the purpose of ridicule is out of line, but i saw those posts j2 made before leftism responded and it was perfectly obvious to me at the time (given the last few threads they&#39;ve &#39;discussed&#39; things in) that they were nothing but incitement. Imo the first move in this thread was by j2 and some form of escalation was almost inevitable. Every other thread where they argued may have been completely the opposite situation, but i&#39;m not inclined to go through them to find out.


As to what leftism does on the rest of the board or how much personal information he divulges, to me thats neither here nor there. I don&#39;t give out too much info about myself, and there are no photos of me accessible to any of you (i think). I never post in the lounge and really don&#39;t see the attraction, so imo if leftism comes here almost solely for intelligent debate then i don&#39;t see the problem. Maybe this means that he and I are harder to personally attack, but thats not my intention and i don&#39;t think it&#39;s his, so its pretty meaningless.
I also don&#39;t believe anyone on this board has an agenda to forward, and i don&#39;t really understand how they could actually have one.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by ilw@1 April 2004 - 18:35
I have to disagree, obviously posting someones photo for the purpose of ridicule is out of line, but i saw those posts j2 made before leftism responded and it was perfectly obvious to me at the time (given the last few threads they&#39;ve &#39;discussed&#39; things in) that they were nothing but incitement. Imo the first move in this thread was by j2 and some form of escalation was almost inevitable. Every other thread where they argued may have been completely the opposite situation, but i&#39;m not inclined to go through them to find out.


As to what leftism does on the rest of the board or how much personal information he divulges, to me thats neither here nor there. I don&#39;t give out too much info about myself, and there are no photos of me accessible to any of you (i think). I never post in the lounge and really don&#39;t see the attraction, so imo if leftism comes here almost solely for intelligent debate then i don&#39;t see the problem. Maybe this means that he and I are harder to personally attack, but thats not my intention and i don&#39;t think it&#39;s his, so its pretty meaningless.
I also don&#39;t believe anyone on this board has an agenda to forward, and i don&#39;t really understand how they could actually have one.
I don&#39;t see what the hoopla is either. After repeated trolling I chose to ignore her. I think you are wrong about ole Lefty though. What&#39;s funny is she thinks she is harming someone when in fact it makes her look like an ass. :lol: :lol:

I&#39;ve seen the j2 photo before as well and I doubt he&#39;s harmed by it. Lefty has made remarks to me regarding crap from a different thread and I can&#39;t fathom what &#39;harm&#39; she thinks she could inflict.

It&#39;s the fact what she&#39;s "trying" to do that makes talking to her rather pointless. <_<

Ignoring her nullifies her entirely. :D

[ilw]

she or he ? :unsure: (or both :blink:)

he was always the impression i had

[hobbes]

Originally posted by ilw@1 April 2004 - 23:35
I have to disagree, obviously posting someones photo for the purpose of ridicule is out of line, but i saw those posts j2 made before leftism responded and it was perfectly obvious to me at the time (given the last few threads they&#39;ve &#39;discussed&#39; things in) that they were nothing but incitement. Imo the first move in this thread was by j2 and some form of escalation was almost inevitable. Every other thread where they argued may have been completely the opposite situation, but i&#39;m not inclined to go through them to find out.


As to what leftism does on the rest of the board or how much personal information he divulges, to me thats neither here nor there. I don&#39;t give out too much info about myself, and there are no photos of me accessible to any of you (i think). I never post in the lounge and really don&#39;t see the attraction, so imo if leftism comes here almost solely for intelligent debate then i don&#39;t see the problem. Maybe this means that he and I are harder to personally attack, but thats not my intention and i don&#39;t think it&#39;s his, so its pretty meaningless.
I also don&#39;t believe anyone on this board has an agenda to forward, and i don&#39;t really understand how they could actually have one.
ILW,

That was my point, that was my only point. People can argue, but obviously posting a photo for the purpose of ridicule is inappropriate. Case closed.

The key here is that you don&#39;t go into the lounge where people have revealed themselves in a personal manner, (whether it be a picture, a story about a medical condition, or admitting to having a problem and seeking advice) and drag that into another forum as a means to humiliate or demean them.

It is unfair, cowardly and undermines the intent of the forum. The intent being to have fun and to be able to discuss sometimes sensitive topics without fear that someone is going to take your honest post and use it for ridicule. This crosses the line of propriety.

As you say ILW, the thread may have been escalating, but people need to know where to stop.

As to comments about personal information, that discussion had to do with how people who may disagree on topics or philosophies can still like the other person when they get to know the human side. It also gives one the ability to "understand" why they post as they do. It is not an imperative nor a requirement, but it can turn an enemy into a friend.

note: intentional he/she comments are jpolisms

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 April 2004 - 01:04


note: intentional he/she comments are jpolisms
You, my currently lycanthropic (normally lagomorph) friend would know this only too well.

There seems little point in highlighting the facts to someone who has little or no regard for them, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good entrenched position. If Leftism chooses to stick to his, her or it&#39;s fantasies then that is a matter for them.

The rest of us can just read the relevant threads and make our own judgment on who said what, to whom.

I suspect that no matter how many people present whatever weight of evidence, it will make no difference. The beauty of being the "right man" is that one&#39;s beliefs are absolute and beyond the ken of lesser mortals.

[jetje]

nice readings this all guys, may i remind you all to the pinned rules for this part of the forum. Please debate without personal insults etc..... ;)

Have fun

:)

[leftism]

Well.. thats quite a bit for me to get through. I&#39;ll try to avoid writing a novel and take the most important point from each of you.


Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Maybe we should make fun of someones heart condition, or anothers limp, or the pimple on that picture they posted.[/b]

j2k4 chased me around this thread provoking me in a childish manner. I posted his photo to show that this kindergarten crap was coming from a middle aged man. A "name and shame tactic" if you will.

You&#39;re comparing that to making fun of people with health problems? This is why I don&#39;t believe you&#39;re sincere hobbes.

There have been occasions when I&#39;ve heeded your advice because I thought you were talking sense from a non-biased position. This is not one of them and I&#39;m sorry to say that I&#39;ve lost a lot of respect for you.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But I have never attacked you, and I have not entered into any go-&#39;rounds with you absent some sort of provocation.[/b]


Originally posted by j2k4

Originally posted by leftism

Your entitled to your opinion J&#39;Pol...


Hmmmmmmm.



Originally posted by j2k4
It is beyond me also, but I can speak with some knowledge of it.

Someday, I hope to be able to speak of it with the authority of, say, leftism.

&nbsp; :lol:

j2... you are without doubt the most insincere person I&#39;ve ever had the misfortune to come across. Only you could write that post and then talk about extending olive branches.

I have attacked your position on topics because I disagree strongly with your views and sense an agenda.

Have I ever followed you round a thread throwing childish insults at you? Or initiated a petty argument without provocation just to amuse myself? No I have not.

Do you understand why I haven&#39;t done that and why you have? What is it about you, a middle aged man with kids, that makes you do that? Honestly, I&#39;d love to know...


Originally posted by sara
I was wrong in my assessment of you Lefty, I thought you a worthy contributor but have discovered that you are the type of person that resorts to personal insults when losing an argument

What argument Sara? He posted a few provocative childish comments. They weren&#39;t a response to any of my posts nor part of any discussion, argument or debate. I think you should read this thread before judging me, because you obviously haven&#39;t.


Originally posted by ilw
I have to disagree, obviously posting someones photo for the purpose of ridicule is out of line, but i saw those posts j2 made before leftism responded and it was perfectly obvious to me at the time (given the last few threads they&#39;ve &#39;discussed&#39; things in) that they were nothing but incitement. Imo the first move in this thread was by j2 and some form of escalation was almost inevitable.

Is ilw really the only person who has any kind of sensible perspective on this whole thing? Thats really disappointing. Ilw is absolutely right, I should not have posted j2&#39;s photo but it was not me who set the ball rolling.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
After repeated trolling I chose to ignore her[/quote]

Ahh yes my personal favourite. Mr "your a girl and I&#39;m not listening to you" Busyman.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I think you are wrong about ole Lefty though. What&#39;s funny is she thinks she is harming someone when in fact it makes her look like an ass.[/quote]

Replace "Lefty" with "Busyman" and that could be the only sensible thing I&#39;ve ever seen you say :rolleyes:

For the record Busyman has been following me about doing his "your a girl and I&#39;m not listening to you" routine for almost 5 weeks now. This is because he thinks homosexuality is a choice and I think its genetic. It has something to do with his girlfriend but I cant mention that bit otherwise he runs to the mods and complains.

This why I like Busyman the most. Theres something strangely compelling about him... he reminds me of someone who is determined to show they don&#39;t care, but all their frantic efforts to prove it have the opposite effect and they never quite understand why.

Anyway, I digress.. I think everyone on this mighty bandwagon who has decided I&#39;m the worst incarnation of evil post Hitler and pre anti-Christ need to reread this thread and suspend their judgement. Those of you who are sincere I mean...

ilw, I&#39;m sure it wasn&#39;t your intent to do me a favour but I feel obliged to thank you anyway. Your post was a much needed oasis of sanity. :)

Well I think I&#39;m ready to step back through the looking glass for this evening. But before I do I will leave you all with one thought.

The posting of the photograph would not have been an insult had it not been for the contrast it made with j2k4&#39;s childish provocations. The insults against j2k4 were his own words. Without them, the photo would have meant nothing.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism+2 April 2004 - 03:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 2 April 2004 - 03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Maybe we should make fun of someones heart condition, or anothers limp, or the pimple on that picture they posted.

j2k4 chased me around this thread provoking me in a childish manner. I posted his photo to show that this kindergarten crap was coming from a middle aged man. A "name and shame tactic" if you will.

You&#39;re comparing that to making fun of people with health problems? This is why I don&#39;t believe you&#39;re sincere hobbes.

There have been occasions when I&#39;ve heeded your advice because I thought you were talking sense from a non-biased position. This is not one of them and I&#39;m sorry to say that I&#39;ve lost a lot of respect for you.
[/b][/quote]


My point of view is honest, I cannot make you believe that, obviously. I can only point to all my other threads and wonder why I would jump ship here. I cannot hold my tongue for fear of someone losing "respect" for me. I actually waited a day or so before posting my first response, but it kept nagging me, so it wasn&#39;t an off the cuff reaction to the picture.

I think you should understand that what you did was breech a tacit trust this forum has to maintain a separation between the person and the poster. Particularly when the you are in conflict with that person and the playing field is steeply slanted.

ILW clearly spoke against the use of the picture. He supported the only point I wanted to make.

Abrupt transition.. (Quasi ramble- but a good read**)

When I came here I fought with J2, Jpol, Sara, and obviously Billy Dean. Guess what we all get along now. But God nows we surely don&#39;t agree on many things, but once we got to see the human side of the others, the nature of the dicussions became more pleasant. This was particularly the case with Protak, we had some fierce name calling battles over religion. One day, in the lounge, we were responding to another poster and the next thing you know we were talking about jobs and basic life struggles. We will never agree on certain subjects, but it was certainly nice to say, "don&#39;t agree with the chap on certain things, but big picture he is ok". The lounge has some good topics, it is not just "STFU" and threads called "I got take a shit". I don&#39;t engage in the silly threads much at all, and I hold this GEP stuff at bay with a 10 foot pole.

Another case is Echidna, who has a viewpoint similar to yours. He is a largely unknown Australian poster who often was on the other side of my arguments. Over time he warmed up to the forum and vice versa, but I think a catalyst was my "Party- Lots of Beer" where I created a scenario of active friends and foes in the World News and trapped them on an elevator. I them attempted to create how the scenario would play out. At any rate, Echidna, who was an unknown foe, contributed in a light-hearted manner, in keeping with the nature of the thread. It really made the thread success.

i reckon we&#39;d be far more congenial and polite in person as opposed to our textural selves :flowers:

Note: that thread is corrupted, about a page is missing, if it makes little cohesive sense.


The capper is J2 and Billy Dean. Those 2 were a sight to see. Nowadays the 2 are on respectable terms and J2 is a member of the notorious Rikk and Cowsy&#39;s.

By getting to know people, I mean relating things about yourself that allow people to form a picture of you that is not black and white type on a page, it makes the process to be more enjoyable. People here know me from my stories, but only 3 people know my name, nobody knows what job I have or my educational level. There are no pictures of me on the internet and no physical description of me in any thread*. People know me by what I have said both in the lounge and World News and can judge me by that. I with-hold the other stuff, not out of privacy, but to avoid being stereotyped by material and corporeal trappings.

I am not saying that we should all be buddy-buddy, I am not here to make internet buddies, I am here to let off steam after a tough day at work and do so in the friendliest atmosphere possible. I enjoy seeing the other side of the coin, otherwise, how will I grow. Conflict is necessary, but once we all understand that on the other side of the posts there are people sitting at their computers who are decent spuds, but hold differing opinions, then the discussions are more fruitful and fun.

On the other hand, agenda driven, logic blind madmen appear from time to time spouting their vitriol and with no intention of being reasonable or thoughtful about anything. They refuse to post outside of a few topics and everything they do really is to drive threads to their issues. Those people can fuck off, quite frankly.

You are being pecked at by J2 and others because some don&#39;t know where you are going to settle out.


*-my weight
**-sorry about the length, I got a little hyper drinking my ice cold skimmed milk.