If you’re reduced to claiming that the Vietnam War is “nowadays”, you’ve kicked free of reasonable interpretations. Especially since the other thread’s OP admitted that it was the current state of affairs in Israel which prompted his question. Oak was right to challenge such language and assumptions made in the OP and Tom was wrong and overstepping his bounds. Telling an OP that their fundamental premise is flawed/sloppy is not a hijack and should not be treated as such.
Since we seem determined to hash this out in this thread, my first observation upon reading the OP before Oak’s comment was “giving them a pass” seems to imply a level of special treatment above and beyond what is standard. “Nowadays” suggests the current period when we don’t have a draft. Ergo, there’s a dischord in that statement.
So to relate it to this thread, I feel Oak’s comment was appropriate in addressing the underlying premise to seek clarity. The current situation is that Orthodox Jews who do not wish to serve in the military are given the same pass that I’m given to not serve in the military.
I suppose one could make the argument that, as a US male over the age of 18, I am registered for Selective Service, such that if in the future a draft became reinstituted I would be on the rolls. Ergo, I am currently “given a pass”. But wouldn’t that be for someone to make in that thread, or perhaps a second GD thread to address that point? Certainly hashing it out in this thread seems misplaced.
Crap, and here I am reading this several times and completely overlooking the parenthetical part about the Israeli military. So perhaps there’s room in that OP to deflect a little in that direction.
I think he left out the word “could” and a question mark at the end.
Foolishly, like a man would react, with sympathy and understanding.
With the exception of you and Tom? Like a man. E.g., “Sorry, don’t know what got into me. I was WAY over-reacting, sorry, won’t happen again. Thanks for all your patience with me over the years–I know I can be difficult at times.” Like that.
Based on FinnAgain’s post it sounds like I was too generous with my interpretation (see “OP admitted”).
It was an enjoyable argument, but I must declare myself the (“a”?) loser.
I’m curious prr, have you ever written a post like that?
To people I have authority over? All the time.
How do you think the OP felt when given a BS childish admonishment? What would your response be? “Thank you, Sir, may I have another”? Or “lighten the fuck up yourself”?
If you can dish it, you should be ready to take it. Not everyone here is a groveling brown-nose.
I know, I know, that must come as a huge surprise to you in your current role as a (self?) designated Mod’s aide-de-camp – and some of the Og-like Mods. But there it is.
And for citations, this was someone posting about the current situation in Israel and this was Paul’s response. Oak was right. Tom was wrong.
That’s your response to being told to “lighten the fuck up”?
A bit of “friendly fire” there, dude.
edited to add: You forget the ever popular “circle the wagons”.
What about to peers, like on the SDMB? (You know my next question will be to ask for a cite).
My point is that there are probably about 17 posts total in the history of the SDMB that generally match the sentiment you posted, and I’ve seen cases where you’ve been a _____ but never posted anything like that (no insults allowed so I am calling you an underline) (2nd note: don’t worry I know I’m a _______ sometimes also)…so it seems like you’ve set the bar pretty high for tom.
Ya’ think? No shit.
As for the “circling the wagons” bit – again, no shit. Only time it hasn’t happened a whole new Long Neck Board broke out. And HUGE kudos to that person for doing so. We could do with some independent thinking by TPTB around here*. Funny thing is, for the most part I like & agree with you as a poster. And you weren’t half bad as a Mod either. But what you’re doing now…
*FWIW, G-Factor did an awesome job stepping into what was likely the hardest Mod job in the SDMB at the time (“Fuckcuntgate” was the epitome of idiocy), and IMHO, Miller’s done a great job himself. Funny that neither one strikes me as the “hive-mind” sort. Coincidence? Doubt it.
Make me a Mod, and I’ll display compassion and kindness to the hordes I will then look down on from on high. Until that day, I’ll continue my own churlish manners.
(Actually, if you make me a Mod, we will all die from the force of **Marley’s **head asploding, so please don’t even mention such a thing.)
Seriously, I’d like the Mods to be much less overbearing, considering that they can enforce their opinions. Tom simply telling Oakie “Isn’t your language a little hyperbolic?” would have had the same effect as his charging into the threads with six-guns blazing.
Speaking of hyperbole. :rolleyes:
tom came into the thread with his sixguns still in their holsters, and walked up to the [del]bad guy[/del] poster and said-------“smile when you say that.” Not a warning in sight.
I’d like Tom to respond to this, please.
Me, too, Oak. Me, too.
Mealymouthed response coming in 5…4…3…2…
Hmm…better take bets.
Forgive my ignorance on the issue, but a draft with an all volunteer force seems to be a bit either contradictory or disingenuous. Are you referring to an event that has happened before that I’m not aware of, or making a reference to a situation that may happen in the future?
I only ask because I’ve never actually heard that term before, and am wondering if there’s a history of what you describe. Googling “draft with an all volunteer force” didn’t turn up anything that I found helpful.
Right. He is saying that no one gets a “pass in the draft” with an all-volunteer force, because there is no draft.
While you could have phrased it more kindly, I wouldn’t consider “I object to…” to be impolite. Direct, but not impolite. Nothing wrong with direct, IMO.