*Deluded even. 'cause we all know morans are sticklers for spelling.
Annaplurabelle can continue to post to the thread. I just do NOT want to hear any more about Bricker’s supposed statement in GD.
=============
There are a few possible outcomes when a poster believes they are falsely represented. Let’s say Jim says Zeeble is carnally attracted to goats:
Zeeble demands proof of the claim. Jim does not provide accurate proof and slinks away in shame to the mocking laughter of Jim. No moderator involvement needed.
Zeeble demands proof of the claim. Jim shows his proof and Zeeble slinks away to dream of udders. No moderator involvement needed.
Zeeble demands proof of the claim. Jim does not provide proof and repeats his accusation. Zeeble demands that if proof is not forthcoming, Jim retract the claim. Jim says he doesn’t have to and says Zeeble was molesting underage pygmy goats at the local fair. Zeeble asks for evidence of the claim. Jim refuses. DigDug appears and demands that Jim retract his scurrilous accusation. Tange appears and says Jim was looking funny at canaries, anyway. Jim reiterates that Zeeble has a herd of his own in his backyard. Zeeble asks for evidence of it. Jim refuses. Someone says Bush lied about the war and someone else says liberals support terrorists. Moderator steps in and tells Jim to layoff on Zeeble’s supposed goat-love NOW and dreams of retiring to a balmy shore where no one even knows what “felch” is.
===============
Manny junior-modding…maybe. I did not look very closely at his particular post. Explaining the rules, fine; saying “I believe you are not in accords with the compliance agreement” --well, we decide who’s in compliance. Also, that rule is very new and I don’t really want it constantly used as a stick to whack people with. “Although you say X, you ‘really’ know X is wrong! I think you should be banned!” It’s mostly just the standard “troll” rule.
There’s an important distinction between opposing the war and opposing the ongoing conduct of the war.
For instance, I might hear that Bush plans to send 1,000 marines to take and hold the city of Iraqville. I might well oppose this. I might think it’s a bad idea. I might wish “damn it, I wish Bush would just pull all the marines out of Iraq, rather than sending them to Iraqville”. I might march in protests against this action, and post my opposition on a message board. All of which are perfectly fine and reasonable things to do.
But, once those marines have been sent, and are marching down the road, coming under enemy fire, I would NOT then hope that their mission failed, that they were all killed, etc. It would be entirely possible for me to oppose their mission and still hope that, once they began it, they completed it with as little loss of life (on both sides) (but especially Americans) as possible.
Two additional notes:
-there’s a specious argument that I’ve heard from time to time that by publically protesting the war, protestors are giving aid and comfort to the enemy by revealing the lack of public unity, and thus should not be protesting. However, this argument is so flawed that I won’t even bother addressing it, unless someone wants to defend it
-there might conceivably imaginably be a time when I actually would hope that US soldiers would fail in their mission, but only in a really ridiculously extreme example, ie, the president has a brain aneurysm and orders the army to round up all the Jews in Boston for deportation.
Honestly, I don’t see what comparing insurgents to minutemen has to do with anything, at least prima facie.
Heck, before Berlin fell in WWII, the young boys and women were digging anti-tank traps and learning to fire bazookas to defend their homeland. I can admire that kind of courage, and find other brave “good guy” examples to compare it to, without in any way wishing that Berlin hadn’t fallen.
In the other thread, someone claimed that Michael Moore compared insurgents to minutemen. First of all, does anyone have a link to the actual quote, as precise wording and context could obviously change the meaning a lot? And secondly, are you saying that Michael Moore supports terrorism? Are you saying he’s a traitor? How so, precisely?