Warning: This thead has been hijacked. Transponder code set to 7500

“Still, you refuse to engage”

respectfully, your contentions are constructed on what i feel are a false premise (on each count), and i’ll explain why.

in the case of the swift boat veterans, these guys have made claims about another person’s honor, veracity, comportment in a time of war, about his courage or lack thereof, and his current level of honesty as well. it is apparent to me, and i think to most people, that this group would not have come forward absent the political environment, and their protestations notwithstanding i’ll leave it to each person to question whether there were political motives behind their allegations.

you’re asking me to produce concrete evidence that they are lying. i believe there are others who’re laying the groundwork to produce just that evidence, and since you’ve waited two years i think it’s not too much to ask that we both wait a little longer and allow them to do a much better job than i could do myself.

suffice it to say that kerry says they’re lying.

there is a reason why those who accuse others of felonious acts, or of embarrassing acts, or actions that would cause a person or company harm in the marketplace, do so at their own peril. it’s because the burden of proof is not on john kerry, or on me, or on the harmed entity. it’s on the person or group who makes claims that damage an entity’s reputation or treasure.

the question you ought to be asking, absent any political agenda, is do the swifties have incontrovertable proof of their claims? if you think they do, then they will have nothing to worry about when kerry’s counterattack commences (sometime soon, from what i read).

i also pointed out earlier that were their claims incontrovertable, there would be consequences. i remember when i lived in san diego the tale of the burial of the founder of our county’s most famous hotel: hotel del coronado. larry lawrence was an ambassador to switzerland at the time of his death (during the clinton administration). he was buried at arlington cemetery, such honor bestowed because of his wounds received during 1945 while a merchant mariner.

there was just this one problem: his claim of injury in a time of war may very well have been false.

as i recall, it was a republican-aligned faction that brought all this to light, much as with the current case with kerry. in the case of lawrence, his body was exhumed from arlington (at the request of his widow, prior to the army having to make the tough call itself). this was a pretty extraordinary step, it seems to me, and such exhumation was the price one paid, even in death, for (perhaps) fabricating a story. this, though his subsequent high state department service mitigated such alleged fabrication.

likewise, i seriously doubt that kerry would escape scrutiny from the dept of defense, esp such a high profile case, esp with republicans controlling every conceivable branch of government. the lawrence case proves that lying about wounds suffered in wartime is not a thing glossed over by the military.

again, the burden is not on kerry. it’s not on me. it’s on those making the claims. and so much more so when it’s a person living who’s affected, as well as the fortunes of a people about to engage in an election.

more later on the NSA thing, i happen to have run out of time for the moment.

"i’d be happy to engage you, except you’re the very same demeaning asshole now that you were 2yr ago. i don’t think i know you in real life but, god, i hope you’re different in person. "

I think if you read through posts here on a regular basis you would find that the above comment fits a number of posters here. It is just interesting you have singled Art out here when there are a number of people here who routinely sprinkle their posts with name calling and insults. I try really hard, maybe naively, to remind myself in the most heated debates here that people on the other end of the cloud are probably people I would really enjoy hanging out with and that is the impersonal nature of a forum that evokes most of the nastiness here.

“It is just interesting you have singled Art out here when there are a number of people here who routinely sprinkle their posts with name calling and insults.”

for whom much is given, much is expected. art is brilliant. he’s articulate. he is capable of much more than a lot of other people who are simply tolerated on forums like this. i expect more of art. he is smart enough that he ought to expect more of himself. we see glimpses of how honorably he comports himself in his personal life. there is no reason why he should get away with boorishness here.

but i didn’t ban him. he banned himself (i hope he unbans himself). i would never ban or threaten to ban a guy like that. for those who are old time usenet bike guys, you might remember jobst brandt at rec.bicycles.tec. extremely smart, talented, experienced, articulate, arrogant, demeaning prick. nice as pie in real life. same sorta thing.

arrogant, demeaning prick. nice as pie in real life.

not necessarily relevant to this topic (or perhaps it is), in my observation of normal and athletic human beings online, and then in the physical world, i would venture to say this (an opinion):

folks that are “arrogant, demeaning pricks” online and yet seem “nice as pie” in real life, are indeed arrogant, demeaning pricks in actuality inside, but just show a ‘nice as pie’ superficial facade to most others most of the time in the real world.

as often the online world is where the ever-present facade of the physical world drops away, and the real persona rears its head …

you determine what you believe on just about every subject based on your personal bias. you then cast about for factoids in support of your views. you do this rather than to let the evidence speak for itself.

Honestly, there are very few folks that don’t do this … including myself … probably more than I care to admit.

folks that are “arrogant, demeaning pricks” online and yet seem “nice as pie” in real life, are indeed arrogant, demeaning pricks in actuality inside, but just show a ‘nice as pie’ superficial facade to most others most of the time in the real world.

Greg–WADR (with all due respect), I would disagree. I think that there are both qualities in that kind of person, but that the “arrogant, demeaning prick” side is suppressed in “real life”. So actually, neither side is who the person is, they are both. I think most of us work a bit to present a decent face to the world–otherwise you would pick your nose in business meetings.

what does “wadr” mean? (edit, ah, i got it. i gotta learn to read more closely!)

I think that there are both qualities in that kind of person, but that the “arrogant, demeaning prick” side is suppressed in “real life”. So actually, neither side is who the person is, they are both. I think most of us work a bit to present a decent face to the world…

two words i see in your post that i think may partially reinforce my opinion: “suppressed” and “present a decent face”.

my opinion is about what is inside, unsuppressed, and unpresented. but often what is inside comes out over the percieved anonymous-appearing internet.

but i see your point, perhaps we are some of both, and maybe this topic will always remain an unanswerable question.

**but i see your point, perhaps we are some of both, and maybe this topic will always remain an unanswerable question. **

You could be the nicest guy on the internet, but if you murder someone in “real life”, you are a murderer. But if you go out of your way for people in “real life” and are as ass on the internet, you’re an ass. Seems like a double standard.

But as you say, or I should say imply, there is good and bad in all of us. Where it comes out doesn’t really matter–but I will agree that it does give some insight.