Page 6 of 7
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 9:17 am
by scully1
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>He could have declared a day of mourning for all those lost, and those family who had lost.</STRONG>
Uh...IIRC, Bush did just that. Wasn't that Friday, Sept. 14th, decalred a national day of mourning and prayer? That's what I heard...
Fable, there is a protocol in place for events like 9/11, and that protocol was followed. Said protocol does not involve getting the president to the nearest TV station, or making sure the satellite hookup is in place in his bunker. It involves getting him the hell out of the way of whatever/whoever is attacking the nation. Personally, I would feel much better knowing that my national leader was protected, than seeing him on TV in tears, telling me how sorry he is and everything's going to be okay.
Personally, I don't think anyone was ready to hear such a speech instantly. Do you really think that anyone in this country was in a condition to see such a thing?? I think they were all too busy trying frantically to get in touch with loved ones. At a time like that nobody gives a damn, quite frankly, what the president says or does. No, they only find time afterwards, to find fault with the way the situation was handled. But at the time nobody even so much as thought about it. And if they did happen to wonder where the president was, I can guaran-damn-tee you they were praying for his safety, not wondering angrily why he wasn't delivering eulogies on national TV.
You CAN'T possibly be serious when you say that Bush should have "acted presidentially" at the risk of being taken out by some unknown, unseen enemy! Come on!! As I said above, there is a protocol in place for these situations, and IMHO following that protocol is the most "presidential" thing one can do. Come on now, get real please. The president of the nation is supposed to take "top risks" in order to "act presidentially"?!?!?! Yeah, would that be why we have a VP and a chain of succession? So we can let the president take those all-important "top risks" and someone else can just slip into his place when he gets taken out?? What a shoddy way to run a country.
Give me a break
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 9:21 am
by Gwalchmai
News reports during the day of 9/11 expressed continued mystification concerning the relative absence of Dubya. He had his typical ‘deer caught in the headlights’ look in his eyes at his short video taped appearance, which did nothing to instil confidence in the public. The 24-hour news stations had nothing to do but speculate and run the tape of the plane crashing into the tower over and over again. The only relief was seen in the numerous appearances by Rudy Giuliani who was described as acting ‘presidential’.
After the heaps of criticism loaded onto Clinton, there is no longer any such thing as ‘unfair criticism’ of a sitting president. You can count me among some of those who find almost nothing right with the current administration. Just because the country has suffered a tragedy, Bush is riding a wave of good will born of the need to show unified support. He hopes that the ‘war’ on terrorism will take a long time so that he and his party can survive the next few election cycles. I am not willing to cut him that much slack. You can be sure that if the tables were reversed, the Republicans would never have let up on a Democratic President.
Concerning the tapes, I had the same thought as HLD after seeing that many additional tapes have been found in Afghanistan. Conspiracy theories are fun, but almost always unprovable, and the test of time usually shows such theories to be false. Additional tapes of bin Laden will serve to bolster the authenticity of the first.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Gwalchmai ]
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 9:39 am
by fable
@Loner, you're welcome to disagree with me, but I'm surprised you haven't addressed your comments at the far more detailed and somewaht more thumbs-down remarks that HightLord Dave has offered to Bush's "presidentiality" on that fatal September day. (I still don't think that Bush's absence gave the appearance to anybody of cowardice, though HLD does.) HLD dealt with the issues of protocol and potential threats at length. Why should I repeat, word for word, what he's already written? I'll be happy to reply once you've dealt with his conclusions, which I find persuasive upon these issues.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 10:11 am
by scully1
@Fable: I think my post covered HLD's comments as well, and indeed those of anyone who shares similar ideas.
@Everyone who thinks Bush wimped out:
Like I said -- the American people did NOT expect the president to go on TV immediately after this happened (to refer to HLD's post). I only heard complaints about that long after the fact. People were trying to cope. I was in my Aikido dojo with my training partners that morning, watching it all happen on TV, and not a single one of us was wondering why the president wasn't consoling us. We were too scared witless for that. However, I think someone did mention that they hoped the leaders, president, congress etc., were safe. (Can you imagine, being concerned that the leaders of the nation are safe during an act of war. How ridiculous.) The first thing I did was contact my mother, who works on a military base, to make sure she wasn't dead. Hello. I didn't give a flying sh*t that the president wasn't on TV. The only thing I thought about the president was, I hoped he wasn't getting assassinated. And guess what. BECAUSE OF THE PROTOCOL THAT WAS FOLLOWED, BECAUSE HE WAS GOTTEN THE HELL OUT OF HARM'S WAY INSTEAD OF BEING "PRESIDENTIAL" AND "TOP-RISK" VISIBLE, he wasn't assassinated. And I am sure that most, if not all, Americans felt the same way. No one knew what was going on, whether we were going to be mincemeat at the end of the day. When I left the dojo that morning, my sensei said "See you later -- I hope."
Top concern, finding loved ones. Next concern, are we going to be a nation without a leader. Think about it, people -- there aren't many more devastating things that can happen to a country, than the assassination of its leader.
It cracks me up. People were all over the Clinton trial, saying "Don't impeach him! For God's sake!! Do you know how devastating that would be to the nation?!?!" And yet, where Bush is concerned, they say he should take "top risks." Risk devastating the nation in order to "act presidentially." How would the country be any less devastated by a president getting assassinated, than by a president getting impeached??
I don't expect to change anyone's mind here, but I do hope that some people can see how thoroughly ridiculous and illogical it is to criticize the protocol that was followed on 9/11.
IMO the only people who have a problem with the fact that protocol was followed to protect the national leader, are the people who have a problem with the national leader. People have brought Clinton into this discussion. The fanatical way in which people defend Clinton and hold him up as some kind of ideal model of the presidency makes me thoroughly sick. I've never seen anyone get away with as much as that man has gotten away with. Yet when proper protocol is followed in a wartime situation with another president, people are up in arms. Interesting.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 10:28 am
by fable
@Fable: I think my post covered HLD's comments as well, and indeed those of anyone who shares similar ideas.
Then I can only reply by answering your questions with quotes from the answers HLD has already supplied, and I thought, with both validity and spirit. I feel no need to add to them:
The White House spin was that the President was incommunicado because of security concerns. I think that's a crock of hooey. I don't know what the president was thinking, but I do know that he was not on TV, the radio or the internet telling us what we all need to hear in times of crisis (ie-I'm appalled at the events of today, we've got our best people on it, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families, we're going to find out who did this and bring them to justice, etc.). Instead, Dubya was flying all around the country in secretive little jumps which gave the appearance of going into hiding.
Here's what I think happened: the Secret Service had (and may still have) one and only one contingency plan for national security emergencies, which is probably left over from the Cold War. Under the circumstances that would invoke such a plan, we would be looking at the mutally-assured destruction which was promised by the vast build-ups of MIRVs and ICBMs by the US and USSR. As such, the best thing for the president and the country's leaders is to take cover and avoid and searing death of a nuclear bomb.
When the first plane hit the World Trade Tower, the Secret Service got out their book, looked up "What to do if There is a Major National Security Threat" and did A, B, C, D, E and on down the list. Unfortunately for Dubya's public image, it looked like he was turning tail and running.
When Tim McVeigh planted a bomb outside the Murrah Federal Building, the scene looked very much like that in NYC on 11 September; smoke, chaos, etc. But you know what? Not too long afterward, Bill Clinton was on TV saying all of the right things, telling the governor that he had the full support of the United States behind the state of Oklahoma, and being seen on TV which gave the appearance of calm and reassurance to a country that needed it.
Dubya did no such thing. He allowed himself to be ferried around and squirrled away out of the public eye. Yes, I know what you're going to say: "He was just doing what the Secret Service told him to do." Hogwash. Like the rest of us, he was sucker-punched by these terrorists and was too shocked to react. However, unlike the rest of us, the President of the United States does not have the luxury of being able to take five or catch his breath between plays. The President of the United States needs to be the leader of the greatest and most powerful nation on the Earth. On that day, Dubya was not that leader.
I object in the above to the phrase, "squirreled away." It gives the impression that Bush looked like he was hiding to others. I don't think so. I believe that Bush didn't create a negative impression by his absence--he simply didn't create the positive one required by the moment and his office.
It cracks me up. People were all over the Clinton trial, saying "Don't impeach him! For God's sake!! Do you know how devastating that would be to the nation?!?!" And yet, where Bush is concerned, they say he should take "top risks." Risk devastating the nation in order to "act presidentially." How would the country be any less devastated by a president getting assassinated, than by a president getting impeached??
It might be a more appropriate measure of comparison to look at Clinton's speech, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombings, when yes, he did take the risks despite the belief at the time that it was a terrorist attack, did go on television, offering condolescences, prayers, and promises to speed funding to the area. I'd suggest that this, and not his impeachment, is properly comparable to Bush's "no show" directly after that September horror.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 11:54 am
by scully1
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>It might be a more appropriate measure of comparison to look at Clinton's speech, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombings, when yes, he did take the risks despite the belief at the time that it was a terrorist attack, did go on television, offering condolescences, prayers, and promises to speed funding to the area. I'd suggest that this, and not his impeachment, is properly comparable to Bush's "no show" directly after that September horror.
</STRONG>
I wasn't comparing Clinton to Bush. I was comparing people's reactions. Reactions to the possible impeaching of Clinton ("OH GOD NO!!!!") as opposed to reactions to the possible wartime assassination of Bush ("THE LOSER, HE'S NOT ACTING PRESIDENTIALLY!!").
General comment:
It's very probable that by the time Clinton did go on TV to offer his I'm-so-sure-sincere "prayers" and sympathy to the nation, the proverbial smoke had cleared and there was no longer considered a threat to the president's safety. Give me a break, they simply do not allow the president of the USA to take "top risks."
However, in the case of the 9/11 incident,
no one knew what else was on the way. No one knew when the attacks were going to end. Like I said, we didn't know if we were going to be mincemeat at the end of the day. People were looking up at the sky all day long, for God's sake, wondering when or if it would end. The Secret Service didn't know when it would end, and that's why they made damn sure the president was out of the way of whatever attack was going to follow throughout the day. When it was determined that there was NO "top risk" or threat to the president's safety, he was allowed to address the nation. Sorry, but defending the nation's power system when that power system is obviously under wartime attack is a little more important than telling people "we feel your pain, and we're going to rebuild." How ridiculous.
In addition: The Oklahoma City bombing
DID NOT HAPPEN IN WASHINGTON, DC!!! Excuse me, but when you have a plane deliberately crash into the Pentagon, that is considered, appropriately, as a direct threat to the government and its officers, and appropriate protocol goes into effect. Like I said, they were a lot more concerned with protecting the nation's interests than with making sure the TV hookup was in place. Personally, I'd have a lot lower opinion of Bush if he HAD jumped on the TV immediately. I'd think, What the hell is he doing? Some PR stunt??? Taking advantage of this to boost his popularity rating??? And I think a lot of Americans, including those now criticizing the way things were handled, would have felt the same.
Wartime Protocol.
Wartime Protocol.
Wartime Protocol.
That's all, folks.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 12:33 pm
by Shadow Sandrock
I remember that day so well... Gosh I want a chance to talk about it so forgive me if I go just a wee bit off topic...
------------------
It was about 8:30 AM when my flipping out grew much worse. I knew that the night before, when I was talking to my friend Charity, I had mentioned "Bad vibes" and to quote the conversation:
ShadowSandrock (10:59:57 PM): I'm getting bad vibes...
*********** (11:00:13 PM): :-(
ShadowSandrock (11:00:14 PM): When something bad is gonna occur soon, I get this pulsing feeling in my chest and head.
ShadowSandrock (11:00:26 PM): The sooner it is coming, the worse it becomes... and it is happening now...
*********** (11:00:42 PM): Should I get my radio back together? ^_^;;
(screen name covered to protect Char's privacy)
Yeah, I kinda had bad feelings for a while before it happened, but still I can't say I didn't see such a disaster coming. I was practically crying before the phone rang at 9:15 AM with my grandfather saying "Barry turn on MSNBC, somebody bombed the World Trade Center." I was wondering if it was a prank or something, and wondering what the WTC was but when I turned on the TV I kinda... umm... screamed?
I kinda got this huge chill right before the second plane smashed into the other tower, which was what I think it actually smashing, since the cameras aren't EXACT with live. I was right there when the second tower got crashed, when the first fell, and the second fell, and I could just feel the fear in all the people trapped inside's hearts. Imagine yourself trying to get out of one of the buildings... then just hearing the floors above you snap one by one as the top half falls on top of you, until the ceiling shakes and there's a small crack, which gives way to tons upon tons of metal crashing on top of you. And time seems to freeze right before it crashes, and you just think to yourself, "This is it... I am going to die..." and you look around and see many other people, some young some old. Some holding three-year-old children in their arms, comforting them, saying "Everything will be okay, honey, we'll get out alive..." and then... all promises become lies as the buildings literally smush you into the floor, crashing you floor after floor, and if you did not die right away, you feel floors break apart underneath you. And the next one falls. And the next. I remember reading my Bible with my best friend when his mom said another building fell apart. I was like no!
And of course the President came on TV that night and made a comforting statement on national TV. Every channel. I had a TV on right behind me and was listening as I posted here. In that one day, I posted at least 300 times. Three hundred times. IIRC, anyway. It was traumatizing for me... and well nobody really knows what it's like to have the bad vibes that something bad is going to happen. You don't have to believe me when I say that I felt it coming, that is fine, but I believe myself for it.
I just found myself easily crying day after day, until Sept. 14 when they had the national day of prayer and mourning. I remember neighbors crying, friends crying, family crying, and I too cried. I found it impossible to concentrate on school work, so I went on the Internet for a while. (I was homeschooled at this time.) I talked to Sailor Saturn, and found out that well I am not the only one that felt as depressed as I did because of it. It was great having somebody mature and understanding to talk to, and I thank her for that... and of course I posted here... but that is besides the topic.
During this time, the President declared war on Afghanistan for not giving up Bin Laden. Actually, he declared war on the Taliban, not Laden. I was relieved and scared by this. I knew the Taliban had Anthrax, and might use it. Then the letter scare began starting. Did you notice that the whole anthrax issue has practically disappeared into shadows? Nobody cares anymore. We want bin Laden, and we want him NOW. My uncle and aunt could have been on one of those planes, going to celebrate their first anniversary, but they somehow decided to leave a day early and their lives were spared because of it. Bin Laden, you have terrorized millions with your terrorism. I hope you are happy. It won't last. Enjoy your last breaths because we are going after you. And when we catch you, may you finally realize how you have destroyed your cause. Nobody respects your cause anymore. You're just another shadow now. A figure of the past.
I think what Bush doing is the best thing that can be done. Come on Bush! Get bin Laden for all of us! Because it is the only path we can take from here. We need to sleep in peace again!
Sorry if my post offended anybody in any way so far.
Sayonara, minna... akiramenai
*hopes that translates to Goodbye, everybody, never give up, if it doesn't then I am open to correction definitely, I love learning more Japanese*
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 1:47 pm
by fable
I wasn't comparing Clinton to Bush. I was comparing people's reactions. Reactions to the possible impeaching of Clinton ("OH GOD NO!!!!") as opposed to reactions to the possible wartime assassination of Bush ("THE LOSER, HE'S NOT ACTING PRESIDENTIALLY!!").
You may be right: it may be impossible for people of goodwill to discuss anything seriously without losing their cool. You have. You're misrepresenting others who differ from you on this particular issue. Or do you honestly believe that Gwalchmai, HighLord Dave and I are reacting negatively to Dubbyah during an event we all regard as "the possible wartime assassination of Bush?"
Come on, now. Many of us believed that Bush was very safe on that day, as were most of the members of Congress and the Cabinet, who were
not huddled into bunkers, spirited away from the nation, and who frequently remained at their places of employment.
As for Clinton's impeachment, it's funny: you know all our opinions, without any of us having spoken 'em!
(Unless of course you're not referring to us, but to the hordes of other people who have expressed similar reservations regarding Dubbyah's conduct during that first twelve hours on that September day.
) This really isn't the time or place to split the subject, but for the record, I felt that yes, it was a case of Congressional entrapment, and yes, Clinton deserved to be impeached by the book to the full extent of the law. Sorry to take that plank out of your platform, but hey, since you're just looking for other large, loose objects to throw at us regardless of how well it fits, who cares anyway, right?
In addition: The Oklahoma City bombing DID NOT HAPPEN IN WASHINGTON, DC!!! Excuse me, but when you have a plane deliberately crash into the Pentagon, that is considered, appropriately, as a direct threat to the government and its officers, and appropriate protocol goes into effect. Like I said, they were a lot more concerned with protecting the nation's interests than with making sure the TV hookup was in place.
Again, to quote HLD:
There is no reason why the president could not have appeared to the media either from whatever bunker they hid him in or from Air Force One. If he can run the country from his plane or a pre-determined bunker, then he can beam a signal to the networks, so I don't believe for a second that he was incapable of being seen if he wanted to be. We needed the president on that day; we needed him to hold our hands, we needed his shoulder to cry on, and we needed to hear his words of comfort and assurance. Unfortunately, we did not get him until the sun had gone down.
You know, it's a real pain when people whom you respect can't simply agree that you're allowed to disagree with 'em. I was interested in an exchange of ideas, here (and elsewhere on SYM), because I genuinely enjoy hearing how many people, all similarly intelligent, can arrive at differing or even opposing conclusions based on unique backgrounds--all of these opinions being as accurate at one another, yet each one, different. People interest me that way. But it's apparent that when the subject turns serious, too many individuals feel the need to blast others, shout, shake a few throats, etc. Smiles turn glassy, and the people whose posts you've admired before, both humorous and serious, suddenly are looking for ways to discredit you, rather than acknowledging that the world is all the better for being large enough to hold a diversity of opinions.
This is my last post in SYM. I'll still be moderating, but I'm sick of the squabbling that takes the place of discussion. (Yeah, I know it doesn't begin to compare to the free-for-all that goes on at many sites, but I still hoped, idiot that I am, that it would be absent, here.)
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 3:46 pm
by Gwalchmai
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>This is my last post in SYM. I'll still be moderating, but I'm sick of the squabbling that takes the place of discussion. (Yeah, I know it doesn't begin to compare to the free-for-all that goes on at many sites, but I still hoped, idiot that I am, that it would be absent, here.)</STRONG>
Just great. Reading Fable’s insightful posts was always the highlight of my day. Even when he had to wade through piles of personal attacks and miss-interpretations of his opinion, he was always a good read. I want to thank all the close-minded hot-heads who precipitated this sad event. *sigh*
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 3:59 pm
by CM
Fable frankly i think you are freaking smart and know alot of stuff i wouldn't dream of knowing.
If people disagree, they disagree.
Not posting will not really help IMHO.
You learn something new every day, and heck i frankly have picked up bits and pieces here and there from reading your posts.
Knowledge is not to be withdheld, instead it should be provided as often as possible.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 5:37 pm
by Georgi
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>This is my last post in SYM. I'll still be moderating, but I'm sick of the squabbling that takes the place of discussion. (Yeah, I know it doesn't begin to compare to the free-for-all that goes on at many sites, but I still hoped, idiot that I am, that it would be absent, here.)</STRONG>
Now where am I supposed to go for my edumication?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2001 5:38 pm
by Shadow Sandrock
Fable, You will be missed.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2001 12:12 am
by Sailor Saturn
Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>The President of the United States cannot be human. We hold him to a higher standard and expect more out of the man who holds that job.</STRONG>
I'm sorry, but that's bullsh!t. The problem is that we live in an iconoclastic society that relies on having icons to shatter. The higher the pedestal we put a person on, the farther they have to fall; and you can be damn well sure they're going to fall. To expect any person to be more than human is probably one of the most idiotic things anyone can do.
Everyone has flaws, even the president. It is our flaws that make us human. I wouldn't want a president that seemed inhuman. The President isn't any less human than any of the rest of us. It's high time we let him be human.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2001 12:24 am
by Sailor Saturn
Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>IMO the only people who have a problem with the fact that protocol was followed to protect the national leader, are the people who have a problem with the national leader. People have brought Clinton into this discussion. The fanatical way in which people defend Clinton and hold him up as some kind of ideal model of the presidency makes me thoroughly sick. I've never seen anyone get away with as much as that man has gotten away with. Yet when proper protocol is followed in a wartime situation with another president, people are up in arms. Interesting.</STRONG>
This is exactly what I was discussing today with my parents. There's an easy, somewhat sad, way of explaining this.(For those who might question whether I'm a "jump-on-the-bandwagon-type-girl" or not, I ain't. I came up with this and told it to my parents.
) We put people(actors, actresses, politicians, etc) on pedastals, then we do what we can to knock'em off. With people like Bush who are doing what is right, that means we have to search out things to hold against him. For presidents like Clinton, he screwed himself royally, so there was no fun in trying to find ways we could knock him off the pedastal he kept knocking himself off of. Thus, people look at what good things he did do and ignore the bad things. *looks back over what she said* I don't know if I explained this in a way that makes sense, so if it doesn't make sense to you, let me know.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2001 12:50 am
by Sailor Saturn
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>This is my last post in SYM. I'll still be moderating, but I'm sick of the squabbling that takes the place of discussion. (Yeah, I know it doesn't begin to compare to the free-for-all that goes on at many sites, but I still hoped, idiot that I am, that it would be absent, here.)</STRONG>
I'm sorry to say that I won't miss your posting. I do not intend this to be flaming, but I feel it important to say. This is as much at everyone reading this topic as it is at fable because fable isn't the only one that what I'm going to say applies to.
Whether intentional or not, fable, you sound arogant in the way you say a lot of your stuff. And yeah, I know I sound arogant sometimes with my posts, too; so no one needs to point that out. You claim to be open-minded, but you generally act close-minded. If someone disagrees with you, you never have any intention of even considering changing your mind. You automatically assume people are going into "battle rages" and attacking you personally. While some statements of "attack" are directed at you, the ones from me, I can say, are not at you as a person but at the way you act. Remember, exclamation points emphasize, they do not always indicate yelling. Tolerance has been spoken of numerous times, yet you have also shown, on numerous occasions, blatant disrespect for Christianity, though not of other religions. Every debate that I've seen you in, fable, as soon as someone started making valid points against what you're saying(not necessarily meaning that they're proving you wrong, just that there points
are valid), you start claiming they're losing their temper and imediately apply for a "let's agree to disagree." That certainly doesn't seem very open-minded. I'll stop this now before I end up saying something to get me banned again, though I may have already done this. I hope that everyone who reads this will think about whether or not any of this applies to you and, if it does, take it to heart. These "blow ups" don't need to happen, especially since half the time, no one actually "blew up" at anyone.
I do admit that I will miss your sense of humor, fable; but I won't miss your apparent arogance.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2001 11:30 am
by Lazarus
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>This is my last post in SYM. I'll still be moderating, but I'm sick of the squabbling that takes the place of discussion. (Yeah, I know it doesn't begin to compare to the free-for-all that goes on at many sites, but I still hoped, idiot that I am, that it would be absent, here.)
</STRONG>
Man! If I don't have fable to, uh,
debate with, I don't think I'll have much reason to post here!
Ah, well.
BTW: you were a Communicator, and you know it. Ha!
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2001 4:54 pm
by Sailor Saturn
Originally posted by Buck Satan:
<STRONG>Sailor Saturn,
You've been warned multiple times on these forums, and yet continue to post profanity in a way as to avoid the filter. I will bring your attention to the [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/sitefeatures/forumrules.php"]forum rules[/url] one last time:
#3 - Profanity and/or sexually explicit posts are unacceptable. Purposely posting profanity in a way as to avoid our filter will not be tolerated.</STRONG>
I'll say the same thing to you, sir, that I said to Aegis; and I assure you that I mean no disrespect with this. Don't fuss at me for using ! instead of i(and such) unless you're going to go through every single post in every forum at GB and tell most everyone else the exact same thing. I'm not the only one who does that and I learned it from the other posters. It is unfair to single me out while you apparently just let it slide for other people. I do not want to get banned, but I do want to be treated fairly and, I'm sorry to say, I do not feel that you have been treating me fairly.
Edit: I forgot to include this in the post. I will refrain from things such as using the ! instead of the i. Again, I just ask to be treated more fairly.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Sailor Saturn ]
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2001 4:59 pm
by Georgi
Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>You claim to be open-minded, but you generally act close-minded. If someone disagrees with you, you never have any intention of even considering changing your mind. You automatically assume people are going into "battle rages" and attacking you personally. While some statements of "attack" are directed at you, the ones from me, I can say, are not at you as a person but at the way you act. Remember, exclamation points emphasize, they do not always indicate yelling. Tolerance has been spoken of numerous times, yet you have also shown, on numerous occasions, blatant disrespect for Christianity, though not of other religions. Every debate that I've seen you in, fable, as soon as someone started making valid points against what you're saying(not necessarily meaning that they're proving you wrong, just that there points are valid), you start claiming they're losing their temper and imediately apply for a "let's agree to disagree." That certainly doesn't seem very open-minded.</STRONG>
In most of the debates I've read, the case is that the arguments other people advance may be valid from their perspective, but not from and others'. In that situation, when there is obviously no middle ground, to agree to differ is the only possible course of action which would avoid conflict. It's the people who insist on continuing to argue when there is no hope of a resolution between the two points of view that causes tempers to be lost. Agreeing to disagree is the epitome of open-mindedness.
Some people might have observed that I very rarely post in serious discussions. The reason is usually that Fable has already posted what I would have said, but with more eloquence than I would have, and with far more knowledge to back up his arguments.
I guess without Fable posting, I might have to actually participate...
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2001 5:02 pm
by Aleldar
Originally posted by Georgi:
<STRONG>In most of the debates I've read, the case is that the arguments other people advance may be valid from their perspective, but not from and others'. In that situation, when there is obviously no middle ground, to agree to differ is the only possible course of action which would avoid conflict. It's the people who insist on continuing to argue when there is no hope of a resolution between the two points of view that causes tempers to be lost. Agreeing to disagree is the epitome of open-mindedness.
Some people might have observed that I very rarely post in serious discussions. The reason is usually that Fable has already posted what I would have said, but with more eloquence than I would have, and with far more knowledge to back up his arguments.
I guess without Fable posting, I might have to actually participate...
</STRONG>
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
That is scary. You are so sexy, when you bring out your intellect. "mmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooowwwwwwwwwww"