In this thread , you admonish me for my use of the term “Saddamites” to describe those who supported the continuance of Saddam Hussein’s murderous, terror-supporting regime. I certainly did not intend to violate the rules of the forum and I believe that I did not do so. I contend that your admonition was in error.
You said, “it was just two weeks ago where you apologized for not respecting this forum. And yet you call your fellow posters ‘Saddamites’?” Yes to both counts. I respect the forum, but that does not obligate me – indeed, it compels me – to recognize how you intend the forum to work and to react accordingly. There’s no question that you intend for Great Debates to be something of a rough-and-tumble environment; there’s a thread on the first page as I write this which asserts in the title that “Republicans” as a group believe that torture is good. Compared to that, referring to the whackier and more militant of those persons who supported the continuance of Saddam’s regime as “Saddamites” is downright kind. I assert that I was well within your established guidelines when I used that term. It should be noted that I would welcome an overall tightening of posting standards in GD and I would happily comply with any new rules laid down. Indeed, I believe that a radical overhaul of what is allowed and what is not would materially improve the quality of debate. Run a survey of members to see who is scared to post in GD not because of the standards of proof but because of the level of derision which is allowed in the forum and I think you’ll find that I’m not without basis in that assertion. But until and unless that change is made, I believe that my post was well within the bounds you have currently set.
You also said, “I allow ‘Bushies’ and ‘Bushites’: to describe people who can be reasonably said to support Bush (and would likely agree to that themselves), who last I checked was NOT regarded by all as a murdering dictator.” That is true in all respects. But. But the persons who use such terms (and I’m thinking “Bushco” right now, as you might be) certainly believe that about President Bush and intend such terms to be terms of derision. I’m not ready to accept that my term of derision is prohibited and theirs is allowed because you believe that mine is rooted in factual correctness and theirs is factually in error – that would go against the very stated purpose of this message board. If I am in error on this, I would of course accept an official ruling by the administration of this message board that people who are stupid are held to a lower standard than people who are not. But it would sadden me.
Further, you state that “Saddamite” is “basically the same” as calling someone a Nazi or followed Nazis. This is factually incorrect. Calling a person who supported the continuance of Saddam Hussein’s regime and who continues, over and over again, to cast every new revelation, whether true or not, as “proof” that overthrowing his regime was somehow evil a “Saddamite” is ‘basically the same’ as calling a person who supported the continuance of Hitler’s regime a Nazi. And I daresay that if someone on this boards asserted that Hitler’s regime should have been allowed to continue and should not have been opposed militarily then calling them a Nazi, or at the very least a Hitlerite, would be allowed.
Finally, you notice that “Saddamite is a homophone for ‘sodomite’.” Well, yeah. That’s true. In fact, it’s a one-sentence quip to why I’ll likely vote for President Bush come November – the whacko anti-Sodomites in the Republican Party disgust me modestly less than the whacko pro-Saddamites in the Democratic Party. Homophones have never previously been banned in Great Debates. Nonetheless, simply out of personal affection for you and wishing to move on, I’ll certainly agree to use “Saddamists” or similar terms which avoid homophones.
Respectfully, I believe your ruling to have been in error and ask you to reconsider.
