VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 00:39:22 09/17/02 Tue
Author: bolagard
Author Host/IP: h-64-105-50-87.DLLATX37.covad.net / 64.105.50.87
Subject: Re: Whoa!! Speaking of beligerant force!
In reply to: Richard 's message, "Whoa!! Speaking of beligerant force!" on 12:44:54 09/16/02 Mon

Richard,
I don't mean to sound hateful, or to beat a dead horse....but in an effort to explain my point about your giving falsehoods undue credibility, let me rehash a bit. You claim that you never said you agree with Kristof, yet your first letter was titled: "A good Op-Ed from the NY Times on the Iraq Situation." It seems that we both agree the op-ed piece in question was not factual in its representation of Kennedy or Bush; it also misrepresented the requirements of renewed military action against Iraq. That being the case, what made you call it "good?" One normally doesn't pronounce a view to be good unless he agrees with it. You also highlighted several portions of Kristof's letter, which would lead a reasonable person to believe those portions represent ideas with which you agree. By calling Kristof's misleading garbage "a good op-ed" and highlighting portions of it, you lend your support for what he's saying. Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions completely, but after seeing your title and highlights, it seemed to me that you were saying, "Kristof represents my point of view, the highlighted portions are words I wish I had written." Had you merely offered Kristof's letter for discussion, without comment or highlights, you would have appeared as a disinterested moderator; you could even have remained fair and impartial had you pointed out the factual errors and fatal flaws of logic contained in Kristof's piece, since the truth is always a valid defense against the charge of partisanship.
Now, to answer your last letter: You defend your support of Kristof's view by saying "I just have to say that we may not like what is said, but we have to respect the peson's right to say it."
That's true, but you're defending a point which hasn't been attacked; no one has said idiots like Kristof or Dowd shouldn't be allowed to spout their trash....just that moderators like you shouldn't make their trash seem acceptable by calling it "a good op-ed" if you are neutral. Of course, you also have the right to take sides and to speak your mind, which perhaps is what you intended to do in the first place....which then makes you a participant in the debate instead of a disinterested moderator. Either way is fine, but you should state your intentions, so people will know whether they are reading facts or just another opinion. Not only do I agree that Kristof and Dowd have the right to express their views, I think it's important that they continue to do so. If they were censored, people might forget how stupid and evil they really are. For that matter, twisted Marxists like Molly Ivins and the clintons should be encouraged to write their views often, so we never forget what kind of people they are. Even racists like David Duke, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson should have their views published and scrutinized by everyone. That said, none of them should be free from having their lies exposed, even by moderators.

As for your opinion on the war on terrorism, you're correct in saying that we began in Afghanistan; you err when you differentiate between fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no reason why Saddam deserves different treatment from Bin Laden...and Joint Resolution 64 from the US Congress makes no such distinction. Saddam has proven himself to be an enemy every bit as dangerous as Bin Laden is; our President has been authorized by Congress to take whatever steps necessary to identify and eliminate such enemies. It's as simple as that.

PS: As I write this, Saddam has announced he will allow inspectors back into his country....so it looks like the senseless game of cat and mouse will resume, with Saddam hiding his weapons in areas the inspectors aren't, then moving them to areas they have already been. This will buy him some more time to build nuclear weapons, something which will make him and his supporters (Dowd, Kristof, etc.) very happy. If I had written this letter earlier, I would have agreed with your prediction of his not allowing the inspectors in.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
 * Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
 * HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

* Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.