read the comments too! I don't think he should be punished.
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a bit more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a but more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
Nice jab on RH I almost didn't notice it :]
Nice jab on RH I almost didn't notice it :]
It wasn't a jab at RH, but soldiers are in a perilous situation, and so are plenty of other people, like homosexuals. I would have hoped that it would have made them (the soldiers) more understanding, and given them an added appreciation for how privileged they are for having the option to sign out, rather than making them prone to ridicule everybody else.
I don't know the nature of the slurs, so it's hard to tell. Here, humour is often derived from breaking social conventions (one of the most famous comical icons here is a fascist hippo named Dolph, who regularly crosses the line twice), so I understand that potentially offensive humour can also be inclusive. But I didn't appreciate the comment from the commander about other people getting offended. I expect better from a man representing a group of people who're often amazingly concerned with how others talk about them.
With rank comes privileges... and expectations of behavior. Without watching the videos1 I can't say just how inappropriate it was for him to make them, but I find it very doubtful that it was proper for a man of his station to make and broadcast them. That he said in one of the videos, at least once, that "As usual, the admiral and the captain have no idea about the contents of the video or movie this evening, and they should not be held accountable in any judicial setting" shows that he knew they were less then acceptable, y'know? It's like when a co-worker sends you a dirty joke by e-mail with a PS line that reads "I'm sure I don't have to say this, but don't be an idiot and forward this to the boss, m'kay?"
Why were complaints ignored? From what I've heard (this article and other places) there were complaints over the years (this is from what, four or five years ago?) that never amounted to much. That one way or another complaints were ignored until this was made public doesn't say very good things. Either way, unless the guy continued making videos after he was promoted I'm not sure it's timely enough to remove him from command. Discipline in some way? Sure. But it seems a bit late to go all the way with the punishment, and I'm not sure I can trust that it isn't being done just to save face.
Why do people keep trying to compare it to South Park or other TV? There's a rather fundamental difference between what you get on TV normally and having your commanding officer broadcast poor-taste entertainment to the entire ship. Even if it is comparable to what I can find on late night television, that late night television isn't going to be seen as an expression of the views of my superiors.
________
1And I'm not going to as I doubt you'll find unedited ones anywhere and I doubt the worst stuff is to be found in the edited ones.
Couple of thoughts:
With rank comes privileges... and expectations of behavior. Without watching the videos1 I can't say just how inappropriate it was for him to make them, but I find it very doubtful that it was proper for a man of his station to make and broadcast them.
Yep!
Couple of thoughts:
With rank comes privileges... and expectations of behavior. Without watching the videos1 I can't say just how inappropriate it was for him to make them, but I find it very doubtful that it was proper for a man of his station to make and broadcast them.
Yep!
I agree. Well said.
I also cannot comment on the exact content of the videos or whether or not it is offensive, but I think I can safely say that it is not appropriate in a professional environment. The material might be deemed un-offensive or even amusing on a show like SNL, but videos like these made in a work environment, whether it is an aircraft carrier or a corporate office, disagree with me.
It does please me to see that humor is enjoyed during military service, and I hope the officer is not severly punished, but the issue should not be swept under the rug. Apparently he is a good officer and respected by his peers.
You would think that people would learn that if you make a video that is potentially innapropriate and not suitable for public release, it just may end up being seen by everybody.
...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world...
I find that hard to believe.
As do I...
And probably most other people who know soldiers.
But I am not surprised by the source.
...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world...
I find that hard to believe.
That's probably because you hold them to a much lower standard. Most other people I've talked to, barring various supremacists, don't really think (or at least, they know it's not acceptable to think) that they deserve any more from others than to be judged individually, and many people don't even expect that. Soldiers are an exception to this, and thus, it takes a lot less for them to get offended. They're also often very keen on how 'they' (collectively) risk their lives, which is why I'd expect them to sympathise more with people who're at a risk of getting hurt or killed because of what they are (such as gays), and yet, (again, in my experience) the opposite is often the case. But I suspect you're not going to believe this, and I expect you to start berating me for offending the armed forces at some point to prove it
Couple of thoughts:[snip]
Agreed. But what I find most amusing about this, is that people are usually falling over themselves to talk about how TV (and the media in general) have no influence on anyone, but in cases like these, one of the first defences is almost always "But it's no worse/different than what's on TV"
You don't offend the military. You offend me. Mostly because you are completely misinformed in every regard towards the military, and try to pass it off as fact. However no one who has ever had the misfortune of speaking to you doesn’t already know that.
I expect you to start berating me for offending the armed forces at some point to prove itYou don't offend the military. You offend me. Mostly because you are completely misinformed in every regard towards the military, and try to pass it off as fact. However no one who has ever had the misfortune of speaking to you doesn’t already know that.
... I'm really banging my head against a wall here. She said "...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world..." and so far you and RH both backed up her point. Is it true for all soldiers? Nah. But you're just adding to her experience of soldiers that, in her experience, it is true for, no?
It'd be like if someone said "in my experience all gays are swishy queens" and I responded by snapping my fingers and saying "oh no you didn't?" while doing a little sashay with a limp wrist. I mean, even though that doesn't prove anything (anecdotal evidence is crap), it just adds to the "in my experience" part, y'know?
Edit: I mean, ****, even if you think she's wrong (I do) you gotta enjoy the irony here.
I expect you to start berating me for offending the armed forces at some point to prove itYou don't offend the military. You offend me. Mostly because you are completely misinformed in every regard towards the military, and try to pass it off as fact. However no one who has ever had the misfortune of speaking to you doesn’t already know that.
... I'm really banging my head against a wall here. She said "...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world..." and so far you and RH both backed up her point. Is it true for all soldiers? Nah. But you're just adding to her experience of soldiers that, in her experience, it is true for, no?
It'd be like if someone said "in my experience all gays are swishy queens" and I responded by snapping my fingers and saying "oh no you didn't?" while doing a little sashay with a limp wrist. I mean, even though that doesn't prove anything (anecdotal evidence is crap), it just adds to the "in my experience" part, y'know?
Edit: I mean, ****, even if you think she's wrong (I do) you gotta enjoy the irony here.
So me and Thunder are the only soldiers she has "experienced"? Or all the soldiers she has "experienced" are "overly sensitive"? I call bullshit.
Nah EE, she meant soldiers in general, not just the few here on the boards she knows.
And she is known for her hostility toward the military.
*shrug*
And when someone makes a crack about soldiers that they don't deserve/ merit, then I will retaliate... regardless of irony.
So yeah. "In her experience" seems a fairly good label.
RH, can you think of a single time that Erato made a comment that you felt was disparaging to the military when you didn't jump on her case about it? When she didn't have several other seemingly-self-identifying military men (or women) join in? 'cause that's what I usually see when Erato pokes her head above water over here.
So yeah. "In her experience" seems a fairly good label.
In all fairness, Erato has a tendency to jump in mainly in topics that allow her to ridicule the military in some way. I can't think of one topic in which she hasn't talked about the military. Granted, I don't know how many posts she has or what the topics were, but as far as I can remember, she is usually making comments about the military in ways that would be insulting to people in the military.
RH, can you think of a single time that Erato made a comment that you felt was disparaging to the military when you didn't jump on her case about it? When she didn't have several other seemingly-self-identifying military men (or women) join in?
No.
However, if one makes disparaging remarks about a group that others identify with, then the person making the disparaging remarks needs to be ready to accept the backlash/consequences of their remark.
Sorta how I get jumped on by socialists when I remark disparagingly against socialism.
Erato does comment on other things but her strong point is bashing militaries.
I am not particularly fond of her either, but this thread isn't about her.
And it is a little in bad taste to keep bashing on her, especially since she hasn't returned to defend herself.
So, let's leave her alone at this point.
Erato does comment on other things but her strong point is bashing militaries.
I am not particularly fond of her either, but this thread isn't about her.
And it is a little in bad taste to keep bashing on her, especially since she hasn't returned to defend herself.
So, let's leave her alone at this point.
I was kinda defending her
in other news, I heard about another guy getting fired for venting about his job on facebook.
Don't say stuff on Facebook. It's not good. I happen to despise the fact that stuff like that gets used that way, but it's the friggin' 'net so you gotta understand that people will see it. With Facebook an' the like, that's the ****ing point. So yeah, fired for stupid.
He didn't get fired, he was removed from command and reassigned to an administrative role.
A fair punishment I think.
Either way, I'm very... critical... of the timing here. First nothing is done for years, then over the course of a few days the Navy goes from "oh, they were just humorous skits" to "this is unacceptable and we must remove him from command."
Whether the decision is ultimately "right" or not, I can't help but be suspicious about the process going on here. I find it... unseemly... for our armed forces to dance to the media's tune.
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers sailors are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a bit more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
Fixed.
He didn't get fired, he was removed from command and reassigned to an administrative role.
A fair punishment I think.
It sounds light, but honestly I think even that was too much. RH, you probably know as well as I that if you get relieved from a command position your career is over. Granted, he's far enough up the chain anyway that even if he gets forced into retirement (the worst that would probably come of this) he'll be fine. This whole thing sounds to me like someone had an axe to grind and went digging for something to use against him.
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers sailors are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a bit more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
Fixed.
I dunno, listening to my mother tell it the easiest bunch is actually the marines. Apparently when she was a 16 year old pretty thing her and her mother lived in Hawaii near a base and every day as part of their PT they would go jogging by their back yard. Once her mother figured this out she set up lawn chairs in the backyard and sat back there with her friends and daughters sipping on wine coolers giving out cal-calls as the young men would go jogging by in their "little red trunks"1. Every day.
And I'm not sure about sailors... wait, do we include submariners with sailors? If we do, then I'd say no. I know too many ex-submariners to buy into them being terribly sensitive and easily offended. I mean hell, talk about lack of privacy. You just can't survive being sensitive in that environment, y'know? But if we don't count submariners then I've no clue.
________
1My mother has fond memories of those "little red trunks". She always has a huge grin when she says that phrase.
Sorry for bumping this thread, but I've had other things to do, and I'm almost as surprised as EE about where this is going.
Erato does comment on other things but her strong point is bashing militaries.
Eh, what? I think I've commented on about two topics which were directly about the military, and that's my 'strong point'? It's funny, when I'm commenting on Astrid's, my strong point is (apparently) being a feminist who've gone to special schools in the US to get brainwashed, when it comes to politics (or anything where RH is concerned) I'm all about spreading socialist/communist propaganda, when nationality is concerned my whole purpose is allegedly to be anti-American (even when I don't mention the US), in threads about art, I'm nothing but a prude (who likes nudity), and now, I only ever talk about the military?
Perhaps people should consider that if all they remember me for is not making positive comments about the military, it could be because they usually don't post in the same threads as me, or possibly that me failing to praise the military enough has made such a strong impression, and created such controversy, that it overshadows everything else I've written? It's a textbook example of an illusory correlation. Robin_Hoodlum has commented more on me personally than I ever have on the military, but I'm not as arrogant as to believe it's only because of his tendency "to jump in mainly in topics that allow him to attack me in some way" (to paraphrase homicidal_squirrel), that he "cannot do anything than piss on the me every time he open his mouth" (to paraphrase Thunder_Dragonbane), or claim that "his strong point is bashing me".
Not to mention that I'd appreciate people being a little more specific in where I'm supposedly bashing the military, especially from someone who's 'kinda defending' me.
No one thinks our strong point is bashing you.
Of course not, that would make almost as little sense as saying my strong point is bashing the military. Which I'm still curious about why people think.
You just seem to open yourself up to being bashed for your completely false and frequently anti-military remarks. Now if you would like to contribute in a meaningful manner I might listen. If you feel like the milatary is evil, I cannot help your delusions.
If you would kindly point out where I've said the military was evil, I might start believing you weren't just hypersensitive and easily offended. From what I remember, the one remark which instantly got every soldier on this board (who've commented at least) to consider me to be the devil, was that I didn't think soldiers, or most other people for that matter, deserved any special respect for being soldiers (or whatever else they were), but that everyone had the right to be judged individually. Since then, I've heard nothing but how anti-military I am, and how much I hate soldiers, and I'm quite astounded by it.
Well if you would stop pissing on the military, I might care what you have to say.
You obviously care enough to respond, to the point of making more posts to or about me than I've made to or about you. Then again, you might care more about your own feelings of offence than about anything I have to say, given your repeated lack of willingness to step away from vague claims about what I allegedly feel, and start actually trying to sort out why I hurt you so much.
I was having trouble so I gave up and said stop it.Ok, but can the two of you at least not bash Erato unprovoked in the future seeing as how you find long posts annoying/difficult/whatever and Erato tends to post long posts thus meaning that it's very unlikely for you to read her posts in good faith, if you read them at all, meaning it's very unlikely that you're coming out with an accurate or unbiased opinion?
/facepalm
Ok, but can the two of you at least not bash Erato unprovoked in the future seeing as how you find long posts annoying/difficult/whatever and Erato tends to post long posts thus meaning that it's very unlikely for you to read her posts in good faith, if you read them at all, meaning it's very unlikely that you're coming out with an accurate or unbiased opinion?
I suppose.
I don't like her.
I don't trust her.
As long as she doesn't need attacking, I won't attack her.
Otherwise, games on!
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a bit more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a but more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
Nice jab on RH I almost didn't notice it :]
Nice jab on RH I almost didn't notice it :]
It wasn't a jab at RH, but soldiers are in a perilous situation, and so are plenty of other people, like homosexuals. I would have hoped that it would have made them (the soldiers) more understanding, and given them an added appreciation for how privileged they are for having the option to sign out, rather than making them prone to ridicule everybody else.
I don't know the nature of the slurs, so it's hard to tell. Here, humour is often derived from breaking social conventions (one of the most famous comical icons here is a fascist hippo named Dolph, who regularly crosses the line twice), so I understand that potentially offensive humour can also be inclusive. But I didn't appreciate the comment from the commander about other people getting offended. I expect better from a man representing a group of people who're often amazingly concerned with how others talk about them.
With rank comes privileges... and expectations of behavior. Without watching the videos1 I can't say just how inappropriate it was for him to make them, but I find it very doubtful that it was proper for a man of his station to make and broadcast them. That he said in one of the videos, at least once, that "As usual, the admiral and the captain have no idea about the contents of the video or movie this evening, and they should not be held accountable in any judicial setting" shows that he knew they were less then acceptable, y'know? It's like when a co-worker sends you a dirty joke by e-mail with a PS line that reads "I'm sure I don't have to say this, but don't be an idiot and forward this to the boss, m'kay?"
Why were complaints ignored? From what I've heard (this article and other places) there were complaints over the years (this is from what, four or five years ago?) that never amounted to much. That one way or another complaints were ignored until this was made public doesn't say very good things. Either way, unless the guy continued making videos after he was promoted I'm not sure it's timely enough to remove him from command. Discipline in some way? Sure. But it seems a bit late to go all the way with the punishment, and I'm not sure I can trust that it isn't being done just to save face.
Why do people keep trying to compare it to South Park or other TV? There's a rather fundamental difference between what you get on TV normally and having your commanding officer broadcast poor-taste entertainment to the entire ship. Even if it is comparable to what I can find on late night television, that late night television isn't going to be seen as an expression of the views of my superiors.
________
1And I'm not going to as I doubt you'll find unedited ones anywhere and I doubt the worst stuff is to be found in the edited ones.
Couple of thoughts:
With rank comes privileges... and expectations of behavior. Without watching the videos1 I can't say just how inappropriate it was for him to make them, but I find it very doubtful that it was proper for a man of his station to make and broadcast them.
Yep!
Couple of thoughts:
With rank comes privileges... and expectations of behavior. Without watching the videos1 I can't say just how inappropriate it was for him to make them, but I find it very doubtful that it was proper for a man of his station to make and broadcast them.
Yep!
I agree. Well said.
I also cannot comment on the exact content of the videos or whether or not it is offensive, but I think I can safely say that it is not appropriate in a professional environment. The material might be deemed un-offensive or even amusing on a show like SNL, but videos like these made in a work environment, whether it is an aircraft carrier or a corporate office, disagree with me.
It does please me to see that humor is enjoyed during military service, and I hope the officer is not severly punished, but the issue should not be swept under the rug. Apparently he is a good officer and respected by his peers.
You would think that people would learn that if you make a video that is potentially innapropriate and not suitable for public release, it just may end up being seen by everybody.
...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world...
I find that hard to believe.
As do I...
And probably most other people who know soldiers.
But I am not surprised by the source.
...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world...
I find that hard to believe.
That's probably because you hold them to a much lower standard. Most other people I've talked to, barring various supremacists, don't really think (or at least, they know it's not acceptable to think) that they deserve any more from others than to be judged individually, and many people don't even expect that. Soldiers are an exception to this, and thus, it takes a lot less for them to get offended. They're also often very keen on how 'they' (collectively) risk their lives, which is why I'd expect them to sympathise more with people who're at a risk of getting hurt or killed because of what they are (such as gays), and yet, (again, in my experience) the opposite is often the case. But I suspect you're not going to believe this, and I expect you to start berating me for offending the armed forces at some point to prove it
Couple of thoughts:[snip]
Agreed. But what I find most amusing about this, is that people are usually falling over themselves to talk about how TV (and the media in general) have no influence on anyone, but in cases like these, one of the first defences is almost always "But it's no worse/different than what's on TV"
You don't offend the military. You offend me. Mostly because you are completely misinformed in every regard towards the military, and try to pass it off as fact. However no one who has ever had the misfortune of speaking to you doesn’t already know that.
I expect you to start berating me for offending the armed forces at some point to prove itYou don't offend the military. You offend me. Mostly because you are completely misinformed in every regard towards the military, and try to pass it off as fact. However no one who has ever had the misfortune of speaking to you doesn’t already know that.
... I'm really banging my head against a wall here. She said "...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world..." and so far you and RH both backed up her point. Is it true for all soldiers? Nah. But you're just adding to her experience of soldiers that, in her experience, it is true for, no?
It'd be like if someone said "in my experience all gays are swishy queens" and I responded by snapping my fingers and saying "oh no you didn't?" while doing a little sashay with a limp wrist. I mean, even though that doesn't prove anything (anecdotal evidence is crap), it just adds to the "in my experience" part, y'know?
Edit: I mean, ****, even if you think she's wrong (I do) you gotta enjoy the irony here.
I expect you to start berating me for offending the armed forces at some point to prove itYou don't offend the military. You offend me. Mostly because you are completely misinformed in every regard towards the military, and try to pass it off as fact. However no one who has ever had the misfortune of speaking to you doesn’t already know that.
... I'm really banging my head against a wall here. She said "...but in my experience, soldiers are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world..." and so far you and RH both backed up her point. Is it true for all soldiers? Nah. But you're just adding to her experience of soldiers that, in her experience, it is true for, no?
It'd be like if someone said "in my experience all gays are swishy queens" and I responded by snapping my fingers and saying "oh no you didn't?" while doing a little sashay with a limp wrist. I mean, even though that doesn't prove anything (anecdotal evidence is crap), it just adds to the "in my experience" part, y'know?
Edit: I mean, ****, even if you think she's wrong (I do) you gotta enjoy the irony here.
So me and Thunder are the only soldiers she has "experienced"? Or all the soldiers she has "experienced" are "overly sensitive"? I call bullshit.
Nah EE, she meant soldiers in general, not just the few here on the boards she knows.
And she is known for her hostility toward the military.
*shrug*
And when someone makes a crack about soldiers that they don't deserve/ merit, then I will retaliate... regardless of irony.
So yeah. "In her experience" seems a fairly good label.
RH, can you think of a single time that Erato made a comment that you felt was disparaging to the military when you didn't jump on her case about it? When she didn't have several other seemingly-self-identifying military men (or women) join in? 'cause that's what I usually see when Erato pokes her head above water over here.
So yeah. "In her experience" seems a fairly good label.
In all fairness, Erato has a tendency to jump in mainly in topics that allow her to ridicule the military in some way. I can't think of one topic in which she hasn't talked about the military. Granted, I don't know how many posts she has or what the topics were, but as far as I can remember, she is usually making comments about the military in ways that would be insulting to people in the military.
RH, can you think of a single time that Erato made a comment that you felt was disparaging to the military when you didn't jump on her case about it? When she didn't have several other seemingly-self-identifying military men (or women) join in?
No.
However, if one makes disparaging remarks about a group that others identify with, then the person making the disparaging remarks needs to be ready to accept the backlash/consequences of their remark.
Sorta how I get jumped on by socialists when I remark disparagingly against socialism.
Erato does comment on other things but her strong point is bashing militaries.
I am not particularly fond of her either, but this thread isn't about her.
And it is a little in bad taste to keep bashing on her, especially since she hasn't returned to defend herself.
So, let's leave her alone at this point.
Erato does comment on other things but her strong point is bashing militaries.
I am not particularly fond of her either, but this thread isn't about her.
And it is a little in bad taste to keep bashing on her, especially since she hasn't returned to defend herself.
So, let's leave her alone at this point.
I was kinda defending her
in other news, I heard about another guy getting fired for venting about his job on facebook.
Don't say stuff on Facebook. It's not good. I happen to despise the fact that stuff like that gets used that way, but it's the friggin' 'net so you gotta understand that people will see it. With Facebook an' the like, that's the ****ing point. So yeah, fired for stupid.
He didn't get fired, he was removed from command and reassigned to an administrative role.
A fair punishment I think.
Either way, I'm very... critical... of the timing here. First nothing is done for years, then over the course of a few days the Navy goes from "oh, they were just humorous skits" to "this is unacceptable and we must remove him from command."
Whether the decision is ultimately "right" or not, I can't help but be suspicious about the process going on here. I find it... unseemly... for our armed forces to dance to the media's tune.
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers sailors are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a bit more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
Fixed.
He didn't get fired, he was removed from command and reassigned to an administrative role.
A fair punishment I think.
It sounds light, but honestly I think even that was too much. RH, you probably know as well as I that if you get relieved from a command position your career is over. Granted, he's far enough up the chain anyway that even if he gets forced into retirement (the worst that would probably come of this) he'll be fine. This whole thing sounds to me like someone had an axe to grind and went digging for something to use against him.
I don't know if punishment is necessary, but in my experience, soldiers sailors are among the most sensitive and easily offended people in the world, so I'd have hoped for a bit more respect for other people's potentially sore spots.
Fixed.
I dunno, listening to my mother tell it the easiest bunch is actually the marines. Apparently when she was a 16 year old pretty thing her and her mother lived in Hawaii near a base and every day as part of their PT they would go jogging by their back yard. Once her mother figured this out she set up lawn chairs in the backyard and sat back there with her friends and daughters sipping on wine coolers giving out cal-calls as the young men would go jogging by in their "little red trunks"1. Every day.
And I'm not sure about sailors... wait, do we include submariners with sailors? If we do, then I'd say no. I know too many ex-submariners to buy into them being terribly sensitive and easily offended. I mean hell, talk about lack of privacy. You just can't survive being sensitive in that environment, y'know? But if we don't count submariners then I've no clue.
________
1My mother has fond memories of those "little red trunks". She always has a huge grin when she says that phrase.
Sorry for bumping this thread, but I've had other things to do, and I'm almost as surprised as EE about where this is going.
Erato does comment on other things but her strong point is bashing militaries.
Eh, what? I think I've commented on about two topics which were directly about the military, and that's my 'strong point'? It's funny, when I'm commenting on Astrid's, my strong point is (apparently) being a feminist who've gone to special schools in the US to get brainwashed, when it comes to politics (or anything where RH is concerned) I'm all about spreading socialist/communist propaganda, when nationality is concerned my whole purpose is allegedly to be anti-American (even when I don't mention the US), in threads about art, I'm nothing but a prude (who likes nudity), and now, I only ever talk about the military?
Perhaps people should consider that if all they remember me for is not making positive comments about the military, it could be because they usually don't post in the same threads as me, or possibly that me failing to praise the military enough has made such a strong impression, and created such controversy, that it overshadows everything else I've written? It's a textbook example of an illusory correlation. Robin_Hoodlum has commented more on me personally than I ever have on the military, but I'm not as arrogant as to believe it's only because of his tendency "to jump in mainly in topics that allow him to attack me in some way" (to paraphrase homicidal_squirrel), that he "cannot do anything than piss on the me every time he open his mouth" (to paraphrase Thunder_Dragonbane), or claim that "his strong point is bashing me".
Not to mention that I'd appreciate people being a little more specific in where I'm supposedly bashing the military, especially from someone who's 'kinda defending' me.
No one thinks our strong point is bashing you.
Of course not, that would make almost as little sense as saying my strong point is bashing the military. Which I'm still curious about why people think.
You just seem to open yourself up to being bashed for your completely false and frequently anti-military remarks. Now if you would like to contribute in a meaningful manner I might listen. If you feel like the milatary is evil, I cannot help your delusions.
If you would kindly point out where I've said the military was evil, I might start believing you weren't just hypersensitive and easily offended. From what I remember, the one remark which instantly got every soldier on this board (who've commented at least) to consider me to be the devil, was that I didn't think soldiers, or most other people for that matter, deserved any special respect for being soldiers (or whatever else they were), but that everyone had the right to be judged individually. Since then, I've heard nothing but how anti-military I am, and how much I hate soldiers, and I'm quite astounded by it.
Well if you would stop pissing on the military, I might care what you have to say.
You obviously care enough to respond, to the point of making more posts to or about me than I've made to or about you. Then again, you might care more about your own feelings of offence than about anything I have to say, given your repeated lack of willingness to step away from vague claims about what I allegedly feel, and start actually trying to sort out why I hurt you so much.
I was having trouble so I gave up and said stop it.Ok, but can the two of you at least not bash Erato unprovoked in the future seeing as how you find long posts annoying/difficult/whatever and Erato tends to post long posts thus meaning that it's very unlikely for you to read her posts in good faith, if you read them at all, meaning it's very unlikely that you're coming out with an accurate or unbiased opinion?
/facepalm
Ok, but can the two of you at least not bash Erato unprovoked in the future seeing as how you find long posts annoying/difficult/whatever and Erato tends to post long posts thus meaning that it's very unlikely for you to read her posts in good faith, if you read them at all, meaning it's very unlikely that you're coming out with an accurate or unbiased opinion?
I suppose.
I don't like her.
I don't trust her.
As long as she doesn't need attacking, I won't attack her.
Otherwise, games on!