Clarification? Bannings? Questioning authority?

[usmc1]

I do not understand the banning or point system, and certainly do not understand the current applications of criteria. And, in the first place, really regard the process as about the same as the "shunning" process of (was it?) the Shakers of old. You've offended us, we're pretending you don't exist, and you will no longer be allowed to speak out among us!

Recently I was elevated to F.O.R.D., "Fraternal Order of Red Dots." It would have taken someone with a boucoups of green to have turned me red. Sort of like a junior high school secret society. Anomalously color someone's reputation. Right. Then bingo, back to green, how mysterious.

But, back to bannings. KirkO has returned from being banned, and everyone is free to decide if that has been a good thing or not. Spiderthug has been returned from a rather short banning. Who's next, that insane Bob dude who libeled PascoDoug and the whole of CFF? The only difference in his infractions were the volume, consistency and ultimate targets--moderators and CFF. He stayed around a very long time, despite alarm bells from several of us, when his attacks were only directed toward the scant handful of liberals among us.

So, when does Nacktman get to return? When does Nudebushwalker get to return? Or are their bans permanent? How long is a temporary ban? Does the length of a temporary ban amount to the same time-span for everyone. If so, hasn't Nudebushwalker been gone as long as Spiderthug was when he was banned?

I've been given an infraction and warned of being banned for name-calling for writing that a poster was either a hypocrite or trolling. Were it necessary, I could support that assertion. Does truth not matter? It does in law! Truth is the perfect defense for libel!

When one spends weeks excoriating a political ideology and then posts a list of positive values of that ideology it is prima facie evidence that the writer is either writing from a base of dishonesty, or for effect. One is hypocrisy--the other is trolling. How, does pointing that out become an infraction, one wonders?

When is name calling an infraction? I have had some vile things thrown my way, I've had my integrity, the service to my country, my loyalty to higher principals, and other characteristics questioned and/or described in ridiculing fashion. Those people are still around. The term liberal when used as a pejorative toward someone is not an infraction?

Fine, I can handle them. Quite well, thank you! Seriously, stand aside, hold my coat, whatever. But, define the criteria! Commie, pinko liberal is permitted, hypocrite is not? Are there seven words that trigger banning as they do bleeps on TV? Where's Carlin when we need him?

And, what is the process? Why is calling me a communist, and supportive of thugs permitted, but my questioning a poster as being hypocritical or trolling, based on the evidence in front of us, an infraction? Who decides which of the two deserves an infraction? Does one person, the current Chief Moderator, make the decision alone, is it done by committee, is it submitted for vote or consensus? Coin flip? What?

Why must these things be done in secret, like the proverbial knock on the door in the middle of the night? Someone is here and contributory, and bingo, they're non-persons, can't even get PMs let alone post.

Some clarification please?

[Bicycler]

Despite our political differences, which are great, I have to say that I am sorry to see Nacktman banned. He is, I believe, the major contributor to this forum and I hope that he will be returned to good standing soon.

[EricNY]

First of all the infraction system has never been a secret. This post was made back in October when the new forums were put in place. http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=10396

Secondly, this should not be a surprise to either you or nacktman. I have given you both many warnings. I have asked you nicely many times to respect the opinions of others even if you disagree.I asked you to stick to the topic, and NOT direct your posts toward another member. I asked you not to call people names. I even posted the portion of the TOS for this site that describes what I was requesting of you. I am amazed that you do not understand.

I should probably mention that you are now in violation of the TOS by publicly asking this question as the TOS reads
Moderators, administrators and staff will NOT respond to any inquiries or challenges of these rules or decisions on the public forum I am trying to be as fair as possible so here is the portion of the TOS that is getting abused the most
These forums are meant for the fun of nude recreation! Posts may be removed without warning and members may be banned without warning if they continue to disregard the rules. These boards are moderated to provide the users with a safe, open, yet civilized, diverse discussion forum covering numerous subjects, beliefs and ideas. Respect others and their opinions.

It seems quite simple to me, and it amazes me that there are so many violations to this simple rule. I explained to you that if you disagree focus on what you disagree stick to the subject.

I warned nacktman and not that it is anyone's business but he was banned for a week. This was not something that happened suddenly, he had plenty of warning. USMC you yourself have had plenty of warning too. The infraction you received should NOT be a surprise to you. The next time you decide to push the limits you will be banned for a week as well. After that you will be banned for a month. If you still can't figure it out the ban will be permanent. I certainly hope that it never comes to that, but that is up to you. I have been more than fair. I have been utterly patient.

I would love for you to show me where you have been ridiculed in the past, and where it was not addressed. I would also love for you to show me where I have unfairly applied the TOS of this site. You know damn well that I have been fair to you.

Additionally I do not appreciate your attempts to create a conspiracy theory by initiating this thread. I also do not appreciate you dragging my name and my responsibility through the mud. I do what I do for the good of naturism. I do not get paid a red cent for moderating this site, and I do not care for your insinuations, and your fictional commentary on the moderation of this site. There are no secrets, take a couple minutes and read the TOS. I am done trying to spoon feed the rules, and I make no apology for my decisions.

TO ALL MEMBERS: If anyone would like to come forward with real and factual poof where I have been unfair, please do so. If anyone thinks that this site would be better off with another chief moderator than come forward. Someone else would need to take over and do this thankless job. You want a vote USMC then vote me out! I would have no problem in finding other uses for my new found free time.

[Boreas]

Thanks ercNY. I am glad to hear that nacktman has only been banned for a week. He can get a little fiesty at times, to say the least, but I think he is a valuable contributor in here. Yes, topics have gone off the rails recently and I have seen your attempts to redirect. It seems to be a job that would be akin to herding cats some days! I am assuming you are also warning other cats in the fray as well.

Thanks again for your response. I realize it is not something that you need to do. It is just some good manners in this case.

[Qikdraw]

It seems to be a job that would be akin to herding cats some days! I am assuming you are also warning other cats in the fray as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

I never knew ercNY worked for EDS....

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

I never knew ercNY worked for EDS....

Qikdraw

That is hysterical! Which one of those guys is our ercNY? ;)

[BinCo]

Is it possible to have the title changed from "banned" to "banned until xx-xx-xxxx"? This would give everyone a heads up that the person will actually be allowed to return. Of course it would only apply to users with more than a certain number of posts. Maybe 20 or so? This would keep the occasional nut job from getting any more glory that necessary for their hit and run posting about how we're all just a bunch of freaks of nature or some other bs.

I went away on business and came back to see that Nachtman was banned. I have certainly had some bangers with the fellow, but would be interested in where he crossed the line. As much to see where the line is drawn as outright curiosity. Was it a direct insult? Was it a challenge to the moderator? Who knows. And maybe it's nobody's business? I would like everyone to know why I was banned, if I got banned, just to be able to see the reactions and really get a feel for it. Without the democratic approval or disapproval of everyone posting how are we supposed to believe in the system of banning at all? How can we let the person who got banned know that we either support or disapprove of the posting?

I like ercNY and the job he is doing right now. So I have little problems with the system as a whole and really believe that he is doing a good job. How can I really say that? I have no ******* clue!:confused: I really do not have any good information to base that statement on other than to know that the one time I was personally offended by someone ercNY was there to back me up. That's the only time I went crying to 'daddy' and the person was banned for it. I have not seen him since then, but I also had no idea that I was not the first to complain when I notified ercNY. That I think is a good thing. We should not show any sort of demerits or anything. If ercNY had told me that there was no other problems with this guy than he could have interceded and told him to stop getting personal and I would only have been able to trust him that the poster was notified.

[usmc1]

ErcNY, nope I don't ask for a vote or desire to vote you out. I think you misunderstood. I was asking if it is your sole decision, or if all the moderators decide if someone's crossed the line. I do know you have a thankless, onerous and difficult task---truthfully, I think you're a tad more diligent than you need to be, but, that's your choice.

I do notice that you seem to take this sort of thing a bit personally and seem to feel you're being challenged when that is not my intent. I regret that you read me that way, it is not my intent to cause you upset or discomfort. Tact is not always my strong suit, and I sometime overlook the impact that I have on people. From my point of view you're doing fine, I just wanted a clearer understanding of how this decsion to ban someone comes about.

I thought it was a fair question. So, I have no conspiracy theory working. I'm not challenging you or questioning your authority, fairness, ability or anything. I thought I was clear, I'm seeking clarity. I don't think I'm the only one not entirely clear on the concept.

I air these things in public, because these things affect all of us. And, there is that place in me that finds secrecy a bit eerie. But, I am not challenging you, I do think you have a lower bar of tolerance than others, but, that's what it is and simply a condition of things as they are--we disgree, I suspect.

I understand it's not my board, but, I and others are stakeholders---of sorts. If I overlooked the "banishment" schedule, I regret my oversight. I just do not recall reading first offense one week, second one month.

But, for whatever it is worth, I think a rule that we can't question or discuss rulings in the open is pretty cheesy. We're not children, afterall. And a couple of us, have adverse reactions to the authoritarian approach--on both sides of the debate.

I also do not think that my post which due the infraction notice deserved it, given the facts of what were in front of us. It really was one or the other, and I'll insist on that until someone can explain to me where there lies another interpretation.

Truth ought not be offensive, and if I were proven incorrect on my estimation of that specific post, then I would have retracted it promptly and expressed my regrets.

I do regret that I overlooked, in my infraction notice, that it would be like Nacketman's and for one week. That was my fault, in the ehat of the moment, I know better and should have looked a bit more carefully. It certainly would have made me strucre my questions along a different line.

What about nudebushwalker, is he in coventry forever?

[EricNY]

I think I have been very tolerant. The concept is simple. Post whatever you want, but do so in a respectful manner. Name calling will not be tolerated....period.

It sure seems like you believe a conspiracy exists, when you discuss the mystery of red to green, and how bingo someone is gone.

As far as nudebushwalker....He is currently no banned, but was banned for name calling and insults. Remember this post? http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=174810&postcount=30

Decisions to ban are not always discussed. A reason to ban is obvious most of the time. If it is not we do discuss it in a private moderators forum. I also review every infraction given and have reversed some if I feel it was not appropriate, or maybe a warning would be sufficient.

[usmc1]

I think I have been very tolerant. The concept is simple. Post whatever you want, but do so in a respectful manner. Name calling will not be tolerated....period.

It sure seems like you believe a conspiracy exists, when you discuss the mystery of red to green, and how bingo someone is gone.

As far as nudebushwalker....He is currently no banned, but was banned for name calling and insults. Remember this post? http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=174810&postcount=30

Decisions to ban are not always discussed. A reason to ban is obvious most of the time. If it is not we do discuss it in a private moderators forum. I also review every infraction given and have reversed some if I feel it was not appropriate, or maybe a warning would be sufficient.

Thanks, your explanations are very much appreciated. Our POVs on the other stuff differ. But, I do understand the process much better now, again thank you.

I think suspension of privileges, or simply suspension more adequately defines the initial steps more than does the word "banned". I mean, banned sounds so terminal.

I think, also, you misunderstood me about the dots. It was not "bingo someone was gone", it bingo I was green again. I did not link the green dot, red dot to Nacktman's banning, er, suspension.

Someone turned me red, according to your explanation at the time both actions required someone with a boucoups of greenies. No single green was going to make that happen.

Anyway, I don't mind being red, we organized a Fraternal Order of Red Dots--FORD!. We wear funny hats and meet at the lodge on even Saturday nights. The odd-fellows have the hall on odd Saturdays. We have a secret hand shake and password, and are raising money for a new organ. LOL, no, one that plays music!

And, I do have empathy for your task, our sergeant at arms has had to remonstrate both Nacktman and Binco for goosing the gals in the ladies auxiliary. Not me though, I'm above such flap-doodle!

[Boreas]

And, I do have empathy for your task, our sergeant at arms has had to remonstrate both Nacktman and Binco for goosing the gals in the ladies auxiliary. Not me though, I'm above such flap-doodle!

Yes, you have much more colourful flab-doodle! ;)<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[BinCo]

And, I do have empathy for your task, our sergeant at arms has had to remonstrate both Nacktman and Binco for goosing the gals in the ladies auxiliary. Not me though, I'm above such flap-doodle!

Hey now. Just because I thought our secret handshake WAS goosing the ladies in the auxiliary hall doesn't mean I deserved that remonstration.;)

[luvnaturism]

I know ERC from elsewhere and I have high confidence in his decisions.

I'm one of the early members here. This forum has cycled through times of no moderation, loose moderation, and firm moderation. Those of us who are actually experienced naturists know that in person naturists are invariably polite and friendly. It really is true that naturists are the friendliest people you will ever meet.

One would assume that same friendly spirit would prevail here. Sadly the record is that, when moderation is weak, the forum is quickly dominated by a few angry people who get off on insulting anyone who dares disagree with them. There isn't much place for those who are looking for friendly conversation.

So, good for ERC and anyone else who stands up for civility.

[usmc1]

I know ERC from elsewhere and I have high confidence in his decisions.

I'm one of the early members here. This forum has cycled through times of no moderation, loose moderation, and firm moderation. Those of us who are actually experienced naturists know that in person naturists are invariably polite and friendly. It really is true that naturists are the friendliest people you will ever meet.

One would assume that same friendly spirit would prevail here. Sadly the record is that, when moderation is weak, the forum is quickly dominated by a few angry people who get off on insulting anyone who dares disagree with them. There isn't much place for those who are looking for friendly conversation.

So, good for ERC and anyone else who stands up for civility.

That's your point of view...I do not share all of it. And, I guess, I want to be very damned clear here, as apparently I have not.

My questions are not an attack on ErcNY! I think he is very diligent, conscientious and attempts to be unwaveringly fair. I do think he wears the mantle a bit heavily at times, but, you know what, that is his personality and his style. My personality and style sometimes runs afoul of his benchmarks for behavior...but, that has nothing to do with my regard for him or his efforts to enforce his interpretation of the TOS. I think he is a decent guy, doing a difficult, thankless job, without pay, and the proper amount of appreciation. The fact that I don't always agree with his decisions does not mitigate that.

My questions were precisely as I asked them. I wanted to understand this process of "banning" and infractions. That is all! Any other interpretation is incorrect.

I don't agree that nudists or naturists are more polite or less polite than the rest of the population--we're merely naked and as such less able to engage in the normal bit of social one upsmanship that is usual in collections of humans. Can't prove it, but I'm betting if you got one parking space and two cars, some nudists will fight as ornery for that parking space as do some non-nudists.

As to civilty, hells bells, I'm always civil to rattlesnakes when they slither by, But, when they coil to strike me, the mule, or dogs, I become uncivil, unholster and shut them down. There are lessons to be learned in life, one of those is that there is a certain ilk of persons who interpret civility as weakness.

[nudeM]

I believe ErcNY has done an excellent job and will continue to support his decisions. My wife and I have personally spoken to him and find him to a very nice individual and well spoken. He is a great asset to these forums and again, I will support his decisions.

If an individual, or individuals are banned for whatever reasons, I'm sure they are for good cause and there is no need for public explanation. The decision had been made and the discussions should be kept private and out of the public view.

But as USMC1 is trying to do is to bring the bannings into light and make this into a one man point of view, which I believe is wrong. The explaination has been provided, yet he seeks 'more' info. As stated, the explaination has been provided, so lets move on.:smoking:

[usmc1]

I believe ErcNY has done an excellent job and will continue to support his decisions. My wife and I have personally spoken to him and find him to a very nice individual and well spoken. He is a great asset to these forums and again, I will support his decisions.

If an individual, or individuals are banned for whatever reasons, I'm sure they are for good cause and there is no need for public explanation. The decision had been made and the discussions should be kept private and out of the public view.

But as USMC1 is trying to do is to bring the bannings into light and make this into a one man point of view, which I believe is wrong. The explaination has been provided, yet he seeks 'more' info. As stated, the explaination has been provided, so lets move on.:smoking:

Never a one-man show. Other's have joined in the discusssion. Other's obviously had similar questions. You're correct that I did exert an effort shed some light on the process. Bringing issues into the light of day is the healthy thing to do.

But again: And loudly this time....MERELY ASKING THE DAMNED QUESTION IS NOT AN ATTACK!

And I do not appreciate your taking it on yourself to explain to the forum what it is I'm doing and with your overwrought defense of ErcNY infer that I am attacking him. It especially irks me to have you do this right after I've posted a lengthy statement that I, specifically, am not doing that!

And, I'll move on when the inferences that I've attacked ErcNY end!

Perhaps you live a life of never questioning authority. I don't. And, I won't. If more people had asked a few questions before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, maybe we would not have that mess on our hands.

No, I'm not suggesting this forum and Iraq are of similar gravity, but, the principle is the same, authority (even sweetheart, benevolent, generous and kind authority) needs brought before the bar of public scrutiny from time-to-time. That's what's happened here--and, you're welcome. I certainly feel better and hope others do too. At the very least, I now have a better understanding of suspension/banishments.

All authority should be questioned and challenged. All! Regardless who becomes uncomfortable, sensitive or twitchy.

Dang!

[Baron Lake]

erc, did someone from Arkansas (the State where nudity is verboten as is its advocacy) write part of the TOS? You know, the part where we cannot even talk about the TOS. Oh I guess you can't answer that. :) BTW, Just who was it that got their little feelings hurt? (I know, can't answer). Could you not just have reminded them of the old "sticks and stones" adage?
Also a suggestion they spend more time nude in the sun couldn't hurt.... lowers the blood pressure and thickens the skin.

b.l.

[EricNY]

I am not sure why it is in there. I assume that it is more for people that might want to challenge decisions made by moderators. I have no problem talking about the TOS.

Not sure what you mean who got their feelings hurt

[GrayWolf]

Would this be better fodder for the principals to deal with directly in PM's?

I don't see where the opinions of us unwashed have much bearing on the matter and taking sides in this debate will not lead to a mutually satisfactorily solution.

Having said that, and just to violate my own words, I think ercNY seems to be doing a fine job of keeping us rabble under mild control. I would have personally taken a few aside and if no improvement, dropped the hammer on them much sooner for getting a bit personal and flogging political and religious issues to death. I don't see the value of many of these threads on a naturist site anyway.

[EricNY]

I don't see the value of many of these threads on a naturist site anyway.


Well like a dear friend said to me "One can not base a friendship on naturism alone" We all may be naturists and have that in common on some level, but we certainly have other interests, and that makes us all who we are.

[BinCo]

But I think all usmc1 is looking for is a simple, 1-2-3-4 step process. If a moderator were to train someone else how to be moderator, is there a book that shows a step by step process for reprimanding?

How many people are involved? In deciding to ban someone are all the moderators involved or just the one on duty at the time? A ban is a pretty serious thing and can drive someone away for good, which is not necessarily what is needed. I, too, would like to know if banning someone is a group decision. Is there a different procedure for a month or lifetime ban. Although I think we could all agree that Bobx was appropriately banned for life as are the hit and run posters who voice their uneducated opinions on naturists.

[EricNY]

I have already answered those questions. They were also addressed back in October here http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=171230&postcount=1

All moderators are aware of the language in the TOS, and using their best judgment the will apply as needed. I also mentioned earlier in this thread that if an alleged infraction is borderline we can discuss it in the mod's forum. Most of the time it is quite cut and dry and discussion is not needed. I do however review every infraction given, and can adjust either way or reverse if need be.

[G I Joe]

How hard is it to understand that name calling and putting people down is not acceptable? It's about time some have been "banned" or whatever else you want to call it. It's long overdue.

[usmc1]

Would this be better fodder for the principals to deal with directly in PM's?

I don't see where the opinions of us unwashed have much bearing on the matter and taking sides in this debate will not lead to a mutually satisfactorily solution.

Having said that, and just to violate my own words, I think ercNY seems to be doing a fine job of keeping us rabble under mild control. I would have personally taken a few aside and if no improvement, dropped the hammer on them much sooner for getting a bit personal and flogging political and religious issues to death. I don't see the value of many of these threads on a naturist site anyway.

No, it needed to be an open public discussion. The process affects all of, and while mentioned in TOS, the process was not entirely clear to me, and obviously to others. We all now have a much clearer understanding of the process and the thinking that goes into its application.

Name-calling is an issue. Who started it mostly immaterial. But, confronting lies, hypocrisy, foolishness, and outright stupidity sometimes requires the use of the descriptive adjectives which peg the behavior.

We're becoming a nation of mealy-mouths, afraid or uncomfortable questioning authority, or challenging lies and liars. Sometimes rhetoric can be used to cut through that torpor. Name-calling is a blunt instrument. There is another way to say the same thing in a way that slices so thin the bleeding doesn't begin for a few seconds.

In my world, if it is applicable, sometimes we call a spade nothing more than a dirty shovel. Not, everyone lives in my world and are aghast that I'd say such a thing about that nice little spade!

[Sanslines]

......Name-calling is an issue. Who started it mostly immaterial. But, confronting lies, hypocrisy, foolishness, and outright stupidity sometimes requires the use of the descriptive adjectives which peg the behavior.


General Comments Which Apply To Everyone:

What is right for one person is wrong for another. What are truths to one person are lies to another. Each person thinks that they are telling the truth. Everyone has an opinion and each opinion is obviously valid for the person who holds it.

The only way that we will ever resolve problems in this country is if people wake up and understand that the constant bipartisan bickering solves nothing. Each person needs to understand something very simple. That is that each self appointed and self righteous person believes that they are telling the truth and others are telling lies, hypocrisy, foolish, or stupid. Put yourself in the shoes of the other person and that other person will believe that they are telling the truth. In the end, life is not some crystal clear shade of black and white - there are many shades of grey involved. There are many degrees and shades of truth.

If people are ever going to get along, they need to respect differences in others and understand that they are just as different to others as those others are different to them. Tolerance, respect, and openmindedness play a key roll in accomplishing this.

As for our nation, the solution is simple. Keep fighting each other and watch the nation sink lower and lower. Find a way to come and work together and at least admit to problems and attempt solutions to those problems and watch the nation rise up again. The answer is NOT in the hands of politicians - it is in the hands of the people.

[usmc1]

What is right for one person is wrong for another. What are truths to one person are lies to another. Each person thinks that they are telling the truth. Everyone has an opinion and each opinion is obviously valid for the person who holds it.

The only way that we will ever resolve problems in this country is if people wake up and understand that the constant bipartisan bickering solves nothing. Each person needs to understand something very simple. That is that each self appointed and self righteous person believes that they are telling the truth and others are telling lies, hypocrisy, foolish, or stupid. Put yourself in the shoes of the other person and that other person will believe that they are telling the truth. In the end, life is not some crystal clear shade of black and white - there are many shades of grey involved. There are many degrees and shades of truth.

If people are ever going to get along, they need to respect differences in others and understand that they are just as different to others as those others are different to them. Tolerance, respect, and openmindedness play a key roll in accomplishing this.

As for our nation, the solution is simple. Keep fighting each other and watch the nation sink lower and lower. Find a way to come and work together and at least admit to problems and attempt solutions to those problems and watch the nation rise up again. The answer is NOT in the hands of politicians - it is in the hands of the people.


Nope, not all opinions are equal or deserving of the same level of respect. Some are based on thought, research and reflection, some are visceral and reactive. Some deserve respect, some deserve ridicule!

There is no such animal as "bipartisan" bickering. Bipartisanship is the opposite of that you characterize as "bickering". But, partisanship-based negotiation and debate is valid as people come together from different bases and ideology to try to steer the ship of state.

But,there are some things just too dear to be compromised. We had a scant few to stand up to Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, while the arguments were that we should make nice, support our troops, back our Commander In Chief. I believe those who fought against the invasion deserve our respect and those who supported it need to called out into the open and ridiculed.

And, hell no, I do not have to respect the opinions of those who bullied us into this mess. Their opinions were visceral, uninformed, stupid and based on jingoistic, flag-waving sentiment. Their opinions were valueless!

This country will change a tad, when it becomes educated, organized and mobilized to action. Obama recognizes that, and that is why he will carry this election.

[Sanslines]

But,there are some things just too dear to be compromised. We had a scant few to stand up to Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, while the arguments were that we should make nice, support our troops, back our Commander In Chief. I believe those who fought against the invasion deserve our respect and those who supported it need to called out into the open and ridiculed.

There are different ways to achieve the same end result. I agree that the Iraq War was started with little, if any, dissent. At that time, a mostly apathetic populace said or did nothing when our nation was commited to this war. Unfortunately, we can not go back and undo what has been done. The only thing that we can do now is to find a way out of that mess. As I see it, IF the objective is to bring the Iraq War to a conclusion, then name calling and ridicule will accomplish nothing but polarizing those who are the recipients of that ridicule. Those individuals will only tune out the ridicule and will continue on with their plans. The first step towards ending the Iraq War is to determine how and under what cirucumstances that we, as a nation, wish to end this war. It appears to me that most people really have no idea how to get us out of this mess. Without any plan on how to end it other then complete withdrawal (and consequences be consequences), we will continue the status quo for a very long time.

The Powell Doctrine was right. Unfortunately, Colin Powell was ignored and driven from office rather then listened to.

[usmc1]

The thread is diverting. I asked my questions. I got answers. I'm good. I answered a couple of critics. I'm good. thread should be shut, unless someone want to keep hitting the horse's corpse.

[KirkOntario]

It matters not what the topic is, or what is at stake, or who was right or wrong, you discuss the ideas and issues without bashing the other person directly. Any person's particular claim to 'the truth' does n't give them any special rights over anyone else.

[usmc1]

It matters not what the topic is, or what is at stake, or who was right or wrong, you discuss the ideas and issues without bashing the other person directly. Any person's particular claim to 'the truth' does n't give them any special rights over anyone else.




Get up and run, dang it!