[GZG] META strong and objectionable discourse was: Interesting mercenary idea

NOTE subject changed so those that wish to ignore or delete the  
thread can do so with prejudice.

On Dec 11, 2008, at 12:55 PM, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:

> I am not in the UN. And no, I was not personally insulted, however  
> I do take offense to the obviously unchecked manner in which he  
> chose to state his facts. I simply feel that he could have chosen  
> his words better and staged his points in a manner that seemed so  
> intentionally inflamatory. What also bothers me is that, for	
> whatever reason, I (and I assume others) are just expected to  
> accept John's choice of words as some sort of character trait that  
> is unavoidable and must be tolerated. I don't see it as so.  
> Rudeness and lack of regard for others is never tolerable.

John is in the Army. He's been in combat multiple times. He's killed  
people. He's seen people killed. He's seen friends killed. He doesn't  
dress facts up in pretty flowery language  to protect people's	
sensitive nature. He was speaking coldly, and directly. If we had  
more of that we'd have fewer problems in this world.

We're damned lucky to have a combat veteran who has some real world  
experience who is interested in this hobby and can provide some REAL  
hard data on what's going on in the real world unfiltered by the BBC  
or CNN or the AP. 20 years ago, finding someone who'd been in combat  
who war-gamed was hard. There were one or two ARVN vets I knew but  
they didn't game nearly as much. We also didn't have list servers  
then that had nearly as much traffic. Just about everyone who DID  
game and was in the military had never fired a shot in anger and seen  
things go pear shaped.

> I have stated in my responses to this, that I do not deny or	
> dispute the truth of the points made by John. Though I cannot claim  
> any first-hand experience, I am not living in a cave and consider  
> myself a reasonably informed individual. This being said, I don't  
> think the fact that somebody shares some personal connection with  
> something allows them to step outside of the bounds of tasteful  
> discussion and, when I feel afronted by a person's choice of words,  
> I am going to voice my displeasure.
>

When did this become the sunday school marm bible study?

> Your reply seems to indicate a fundimental disregard for what I  
> have said and an almost willful side-stepping of the details in  
> order to back up a position which has nothing to do with the source  
> of my complaint. I am not and did not ignore facts. Indeed, the  
> only compaint I had with what was said by John was the way in which  
> he chose to say it and nothing about the facts that he contributed.

> Strong and objectionable language is just that, no matter how  
> riteous the point it is being used to make. If this same tone were  
> used to make a point about something more obviously prejudicial, my  
> irritation might not be so singular. I don't care who you are or  
> what you have done, nothing gives you the right shove your venom  
> down my throat.
>

What was strong and objectionable? Cite the passage please.

"Today's UN doesn't have a military either.  And when they DO conduct
military operations, it is more likely to be with Third World
uniformed thugs working for cash and running child prostitution rings
on the side than it is to be anything professional.  Oh, and even if
you do convince First World militaries to contribute, they put some
politically correct jackass in charge so the "peacekeepers" are stuck
basically videotaping the murders and rapes rather than doing anything
productive."

Does the word Thug upset you? Perhaps it's Politically Correct Jackass?

How would you describe someone who came up with the rules of  
engagement that allowed 8000 people to be murdered in full view of  
Dutch Peacekeepers? I can think of some words but they're not as  
polite. Frankly, that you WANT them to be addressed and described  
politely has me thinking you need to be given a pep talk by Chopper.

PS. John doesn't need me to explain this for him (or more  
importantly, defend him, he can do that quite well on his own).  I do  
address this though because I'm cognizant of the realities that he's  
dealt with if not familiar with them. And frankly, your response just  
annoys the hell out of me. I could elaborate, but that would probably  
be too strong and objectionable.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l