OK Serious Topic Here: How many of YOU are between the ages of 18 and 26? Are YOU ready to go to WAR?

[juanesky 0]

Quote

I agree that all should serve their Country... but fightin' aint the only form of 'sevice' and forcing people to fight is just wrong... that's not IMO, that's fact.

Wrong- that is your opinion not a fact.

Quote

I doubt Canada would do anything to help nail draft doggers.

And a lot of us can doubt that it is within your power to do so....

Quote

And I truly hope we wouldn't, I might add. We live in a true state of democracy over here and were happy to help those that didn't want to fight someones elses battles in the past.

Well, maybe you will like to look into that socialism you guys live at, and try to do something about it to get things going better on your end....Your tax is close to the range of 50%. That pretty much is like living in grand old USSR less than 20 years back (work for the state) and what about the long love for the queen, is that something that promotes democracy?

Quote

Can't find enough of your people to fight for you?... Perhaps you should reconsider your motives?

Ph yes, there are quite few here.....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Amazon 7]

Quote

what about the long love for the queen, is that something that promotes democracy?

Uh the Magna Carta goes back a LONG WAY....

and you are still pissed they kicked some major ass in the Falklands...

[juanesky 0]

Quote

and you are still pissed they kicked some major ass in the Falklands...

No, au contraire, mon ami....I think you are the one pissed as your enchanting writing style, professes your love for all of us

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Douva 0]

Quote

I deleted this the last time you posted it and have deleted this one as well. No personal attacks. One more time and you'll get banned for a while. See the forum rules.

I would like for you to define a "personal attack." In my previous post I equated my opponent to a virus--contributing nothing to her host but still feeding off it. That's not a personal attack; it's a metaphor. A personal attack makes an unsubstantiated slur against an opponent, completely unrelated to the topic of discussion. If I had made a derogatory comment about her intelligence or her appearance, that would have been a personal attack. Comparing the effect her apathetic approach to citizenship has on the United States to the effect a virus has on its host was not a personal attack; you simply didn't like and/or agree with it. If you want to delete my posts because you don't like what I have to say, I suppose you have that right, but don't accuse me of stooping to the level of personal attacks.

Blue skies,

W. Scott "Douva" Lewis

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Beerlight 0]

Any of ya'll going to the Mardi Gras boogie? Oops, sorry........wrong thread

[WingnutOrange 0]

The way I see it, we've been in a permanent state of war since we became a heavy player in world politics, because our ideas are not popular with people such as Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, etc. Terrorism against the U.S is now commonplace, and we have made enemies throughout most of the world. It sucks. I wish it weren't true, but it is. So I gladly serve our nation; and to anyone who might be called upon to do the same, I wish you good luck.

[billvon 2,989]

OK quick review here everyone!

No personal attacks. That means you can't call someone spinless, a jellyfish, or a virus. That means you can't call them clueless and naive. You can't call them that even if you're really, really mad at them. You can't call them that even if you think they really _are_ a jellyfish.

No one likes it when I delete threads and ban people, but that's next. Last warning.

[Douva 0]

Quote

OK quick review here everyone!

No personal attacks. That means you can't call someone spinless, a jellyfish, or a virus. That means you can't call them clueless and naive. You can't call them that even if you're really, really mad at them. You can't call them that even if you think they really _are_ a jellyfish.

No one likes it when I delete threads and ban people, but that's next. Last warning.

You've reiterated the obvious rule that personal attacks aren't allowed, but you still haven't shared your definition of a "personal attack." I'm still not quite sure how a metaphor pertaining to the topic at hand, however distasteful you may find it, constitutes a personal attack. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, but I think you may be operating under too broad an interpretation of the rules.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Yeah, well after serving her country for 3 years and then having a baby she had hoped to use some of that GI Bill money and get her college out of the way. She also joined the Reserves.

A college degree at the very least is not a bad thing to have if you can use it wisely, especially when you have a 2 year old son to raise. She goes to school full time and does her military duty on weekends. It is a pretty busy schedule and a bit of work ... Unless you were born into a lot of money, etc. most single moms do not choose to be single moms. A lot of the time the dad dissociates/is irresponsible/skips out on child support/etc. for whatever reason. In the world that we live in, being responsible for raising a child "right", trying to keep on top of current affairs, staying educated and trying to get ahead in the world with a college education, supporting yourself and your child and yours and your child's needs, staying fit and having time for yourself and a little bit of a life can be a lot. And no it is not impossible, there are a lot of us out there doing it. She also by the way works at the University 10-15 hours a week.

Oh and don't forget to add on the homework. I don't think she or anyone else is asking for your empathy about any of those things. But when you've already served your country for three years and live a substandard lifestyle because you are trying to further yourself in a day when I hate to say it but it is a Man's world. Isn't it true that when comparing salaries, women make 75% of what men make with the same job title/qualifications?

I'm not over here trying to raise a huffy but once in a while it is good to read between the lines and try and really understand another.

I think JohnRich and Angela both have valid points. I'll write more on some of that stuff later, I need to go to bed

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Quote

Having been a recruiter, and having 40 of them work for me for over two years, I can say that the vast majority of recruiters (At least the Army ones) are honest... Do they put the best spin on the Army they can? Sure they do, they are in sales. Do they lie about the Army? Some do, but every alligation of recruiter inpropriety is investigated to the fullest. And more often than not (by a large margin) it is some kid who found out they don't like it and is doing whatever they can to get out of it.

J

I just have a question ... how many of those cases do you think go unreported???

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[billvon 2,989]

> but you still haven't shared your definition of a "personal attack."

Personal attacks include:

You're a virus.
You're a jellyfish.
You're an idiot.
You're clueless and naive.

Basically, anything that starts with "you are" (or words to that effect) and concludes with a pejorative. Clever ways to get around that get no credit, like "Words that come to mind to describe you would be jellyfish and spineless."

Is that clear enough? If someone's statement bothers you, attack the idea, not the poster. Attacking the poster makes you look like you have no valid argument _and_ gets your stuff deleted and/or gets you banned. If you detest the person so much that you feel you must attack them, there are plenty of other internet sites where such attacks are allowed. Just not here.

[Dougjumper 0]

Killem all.

Let God Sort em out....

[Douva 0]

Quote

> but you still haven't shared your definition of a "personal attack."

Personal attacks include:

You're a virus.
You're a jellyfish.
You're an idiot.
You're clueless and naive.

Basically, anything that starts with "you are" (or words to that effect) and concludes with a pejorative. Clever ways to get around that get no credit, like "Words that come to mind to describe you would be jellyfish and spineless."

Is that clear enough? If someone's statement bothers you, attack the idea, not the poster. Attacking the poster makes you look like you have no valid argument _and_ gets your stuff deleted and/or gets you banned. If you detest the person so much that you feel you must attack them, there are plenty of other internet sites where such attacks are allowed. Just not here.

That's a pretty arbitrary definition, isn't it? If I had said, "You are hurting America," but left out the valid metaphor, would that have been okay with you? It still starts with "you are," and some might argue that claiming someone is hurting America is disparaging. Would it have been all right with you if I had said the poster's attitude made her like a virus? The difference seems like touchy-feely semantics to me, but maybe that is what you're looking for. With all do respect, yours is a very weak definition. A response such as "a comment that serves only to belittle another person without contributing to the topic of discussion," would have been a much better answer, but it wouldn't have supported your deletion of my post or your libelous accusations that I resorted to a "personal attack" in a debate. I would go as far as to suggest that perhaps you are unqualified to moderate this newsgroup, but I'd hate to risk misusing the "you are" phrase.

--W. Scott "Douva" Lewis

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[billvon 2,989]

>That's a pretty arbitrary definition, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's straightforward and pretty much everyone understands it.

>Would it have been all right with you if I had said the poster's
>atitude made her like a virus?

No.

> A response such as "a comment that serves only to belittle another
>person without contributing to the topic of discussion," would have
>been a much better answer . . .

And you would have found a way around that one, too.

No personal attacks. Period. If you are unable to tell a personal attack from a discussion, try rec.skydiving.

[Guest]

Quote

How about based on my four years in the USAF I never met a person who was told the truth by a recruiter.

Mine did - he knew I was an Army brat fresh from Korea, and was wise to the ways of the military.

I got exactly what I signed on for (326X5B [F-15 Avionics Manual Test]). I even went to the tech school I wanted to attend (Lowry AFB, CO) and got the first duty station I wanted (Bitburg AB, Germany).

I also had the highest ASVAB scores his office had ever seen, although that really isn't saying much...

If I had it to do over I would still have served, but it would have been in a commission billet instead of enlisted. Still LOADS of BS, but some perks to go with it.

However, had I done so, I would have been in the same boat my commissioned contemporaries were in - being involuntarily RIF'd after the Gulf War.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Douva 0]

Quote

>That's a pretty arbitrary definition, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's straightforward and pretty much everyone understands it.

>Would it have been all right with you if I had said the poster's
>atitude made her like a virus?

No.

The way I am coming to understand your interpretation of the rules, posters are not allowed to in any way suggest that a person or his/her views are anything but beneficial to society and the universe as a whole--Does that just about sum it up?

Quote

> A response such as "a comment that serves only to belittle another
>person without contributing to the topic of discussion," would have
>been a much better answer . . .

And you would have found a way around that one, too.

Is that the way you view the people whose discussions you moderate--as deviants always looking for a way to undermine your authority? Do you really think my goal is to find a way to cast aspersions without facing reprimand?

Quote

No personal attacks. Period. If you are unable to tell a personal attack from a discussion, try rec.skydiving.

I dislike personal attacks as much as anybody--They ruin debates. The only thing worse than a personal attack is somebody on a "personal attack" witch hunt. I view your approach to this matter as a simple case of your own political correctness run amuck. I believe you have made the same mistake people have been making throughout recorded history--You reacted to a social problem by rushing in the equally erroneous extreme opposite direction. I think moderators, of all people, should understand the concept of moderation.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[redrocka 0]

First time I read about this was 5 or 6 months ago. Last I heard this was started by couple (1 or 2) democratic congressmen who were in opposition to the war. The whole point of the bill was to include those children of the upper crust in the draft to make a point to our leaders. Where its gone since then I don't know. In answer to the original question, (even though I've already served) I'm 28 and in the process of learning Arabic so I might be able to better serve my country should she require my services again...

Sweet Gravity...

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

BillVon, Thanks for clearing that up. That was a good point you made. These are "other" people's beliefs PEOPLE. There is no reason to call "them" names or attack them. I haven't seen anyone stand alone in their beliefs here and almost everyone has made a point.

I think it is interesting to see where people are coming from and "their" beliefs. But personal attacking is not cool. These issues can get us riled. our thoughts moving and our blood pumping (kinda like skydiving ), I know that but lets not get carried away.

I think BillVon made some very good points and was VERY CLEAR as to what a personal attack is. I didn't see any reason to argue that.

Anyway, I think when people are in a mess and need to come up with a solution, the first step is to analyze the situation. We'll really get nowhere or ever move forward if we can't at least try to understand another human being.

I'd be willing to bet money that if we were attacked by another planet, the world would change. Now instead of primary threats being other countries, we are possibly dealing with who knows what. I'd bet $$$ that the entire world, planet Earth would become a United force.

I believe it is human nature to fight based on where we came from but as we become more advanced we should be able to learn ways of toning it down a little.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[samhussey 0]

Quote

I'd bet $$$ that the entire world, planet Earth would become a United force.

Yeah, and Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman would all save us from certain annihilation!

[billvon 2,989]

>The way I am coming to understand your interpretation of the rules,
> posters are not allowed to in any way suggest that a person or
> his/her views are anything but beneficial to society and the universe
> as a whole--Does that just about sum it up?

No. You can say whatever you want about their VIEWS. Not about THEM.

"Your idea will spread like a virus." - OK.
"You are a virus." - not OK.

"That's a foolish idea" - OK.
"You are a fool." - not OK.

Again, really pretty simple.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

I would go as far as to suggest that perhaps you are unqualified to moderate this newsgroup, but I'd hate to risk misusing the "you are" phrase.

--W. Scott "Douva" Lewis

This is NOT a newsgroup.

It is a privately owned site whose owner allows you to post things on it subject to his conditions.

If you don't like his conditions you have the option of starting your own skydiving web site. I believe rates are very reasonable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Now, what about if children are being slaughtered elsewhere in the world - is that worth fighting against?

I am not going to say it is not worth fighting against. But, what I will say is that the US cannot have things the way it wants them in all places. We have one country. The fate of the world does not rest in our hands. There are plenty of countries where there are people dieing of starvation. What are we doing about that?

So, if foreign children are being slaughtered, then you don't think that U.S. troops should step in to stop that slaughter? We should just accept it as; "Hey, it's not our problem!"

And at the same time, it's okay to step in and cure hunger, but not to stop mass slaughter?

Those two positions seem contradictory to me.

It seems to me that slaughter is worse than hunger. If intruding to stop hunger is a good thing, then intruding to stop murder is an even better thing.

Or maybe we should just intrude to feed them, so that the bad guys can go ahead and slaughter them with full bellies?

[billvon 2,989]

>So, if foreign children are being slaughtered, then you don't
> think that U.S. troops should step in to stop that slaughter?

If they could do that alone, that would be great. Send troops in to keep the peace and prevent killing? No question, do it. Unfortunately, sometimes they have to slaughter children to stop the slaughter of children, as was the case with Iraq. Makes it a gray area. Is it OK to kill 1000 kids to prevent the deaths of 100? How about 100 to stop the killing of 1000? Choose any number you want, but once you choose that number, admit to yourself that killing _some_ kids is OK with you if it has some other benefit.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The way I see it, we've been in a permanent state of war since we became a heavy player in world politics, because our ideas are not popular with people such as Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, etc.

And some people think that we should try to make violent extremists like that love us, by getting into bed with them, as a way of stopping terrorism against us.

If we do that, then we have become like them.

It's a good thing to oppose violent tyrants. To do otherwise is to condone violence and tyranny, and allow it to flourish.

Then all the bleeding hearts, instead of whining about America's involvement in trying to stop tyranny, would whine about why America doesn't get involved to stop tyranny.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Yeah, well after serving her country for 3 years and then having a baby she had hoped to use some of that GI Bill money and get her college out of the way. She also joined the Reserves.

A college degree at the very least is not a bad thing to have if you can use it wisely, especially when you have a 2 year old son to raise. She goes to school full time and does her military duty on weekends. It is a pretty busy schedule and a bit of work ...

Yep, it's a busy life, on not much money. But none of that is the fault of the military, upon which you first blamed it. It's partly the fault of the deadbeat father. It's partly her own decision to go to school instead of working full time. That's the best decision for the long run, but nevertheless, it's her personal choice.

None of those factors are an indictment against military service.

I applaud your friend for choosing to live poorly now, for the promise of a better life later. That's a wise and mature thing to do.