Apologies

[John Prezioso]

Clint Eastwood famously said in one of his movies, ÔÇ£A man has got to know his limitations.ÔÇØ I have always liked that, and have tried to follow it, as it makes good sense. One of my limitations is that I have ÔÇ£buttonsÔÇØ. You know, one of those things people can do (deliberately or undeliberately) that will get you to act out of character, usually in the form of getting angry, flustered, or off-balance. I have been involved in debates since I was a freshman in high school on the debate team in 1988, and have always prided myself on my ability to keep a cool head, regardless of how heated the subject matter of the debate got. Unless the other guy hit one of my buttons. When that happened, I would end up making a less coherent argument, and ultimately lose the debate on substance. I have made many efforts towards overcoming this weakness since then, mostly in the form of eliminating the number of ÔÇ£buttonsÔÇØ I have that can be pushed.

One of the buttons I have never been able to eliminate is politicizing the peoplesÔÇÖ deaths for the purpose of oneÔÇÖs own agenda (either real or perceived). When this is done in the case of 9/11, in which the deaths involve people I actually knew, and my father was one who only just barely escaped with his own life, it clearly is a topic I need to stay out of. Understanding this, I was wrong to post in the 9/11 thread; and for getting so angry and violating the forum rules, I apologize. For what itÔÇÖs worth, my anger was not a ÔÇÿtacticÔÇÖ ÔÇô it was an emotion. One born of the combination of remembrance of the absolutely sick feeling I had on what was the worst day in my life and disgust at the disconnected coolness that is becoming more and more prevalent about an event I find very personal and very painful. My ÔÇÿtearful storyÔÇÖ was not some calculated, wrong-headed justification for an unpopular war, nor was it a fishing trip for sympathy ÔÇô it was an attempt to put the seemingly forgotten human side back on a horrific event that is, in my view, being mariginalized and exploited solely for advancement of radical and extremist idealism. Even in my normal dispassionate and even-keeled state I find it acutely offensive that someone could see an account of personal pain as a ÔÇÿtacticÔÇÖ. This to me says a lot about human nature and the strictly calculating, cold-hearted disposition of some people.

For the record, I donÔÇÖt use terms like ÔÇ£anti-AmericanÔÇØ lightly on fellow Americans. That I consider certain people from other fine countries as anti-American is of little import seeing as how they are not Americans, and really donÔÇÖt have any real obligation to be ÔÇ£pro-AmericanÔÇØ. That I referred to them as anti-American ÔÇ£idiotsÔÇØ was indeed uncalled for and I do apologize. In case you were wondering, Silk, I was not including you in the Anti-American category, as it is clear you care as deeply for our country as I do. While I question your methods and motives, I never question your patriotism. Not that you afford Bush or Cheney the same courtesy with your largely baseless sinister conspiracy theories, but that is your business.

My fleet leader Ben Zwycky, who is far wiser than I, recently gave me some extremely good advice: ÔÇ£Let us focus on what unites us.ÔÇØ It is with this in mind, finally, that I apologize to Silk for the things I said. I most certainly would NOT spit in your face.

At any rate, I wish to continue living under the golden rule that no decisions should ever be made when one is angry. Thus, if my previous action has not resulted in being banned, (which to this point it has not) I would very much like to remain at 3000AD.

[Kevin Trotter]

You are a gentleman sir. I can pay no higher complement to a man.

[Guest Remo Williams]

Unfortunately I've been busy the last few days Prez and did not see what youÔÇÖre apologizing for until just now.

I hope you have seen the error of your ways sir because and out burst like that will get you sent to the airlock for a time out in the future. Even though I share your frustrations with the heartless nature of that topic its best to just let them rant and let it be seen for what it is.

Remo Out.

[Supreme Cmdr]

....erm, does someone care to fill me in as to what he's apologizing for?

[Guest Remo Williams]

Sure thing you can read it here.

http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...0770;p=1#000010

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

You are a gentleman sir. I can pay no higher complement to a man.

---

Thanks, Race. I appreciate that alot.

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

Sure thing you can read it here.

http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...0770;p=1#000010

---

Whoa!! I'm so glad that I stay out of those forums.

So, is there any reason why Prez wasn't temp-banned? Don't we have a zero tolerance policy against members insulting others? I glanced no less than a dozen personal insults against Silk in that post alone.

Apologies or not, I want Prez temp-banned (one week) effective immediately Remo.

[Marvin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

Don't we have a zero tolerance policy against members insulting others?

---

Boss, if this policy is to hold true for the political section of the forum then you need to bump your above quote once or twice a month as a reminder.

[Kalshion]

Since it seems A LOT of people have forgotten what the rules really are, I agree with Marvins statement

There was a lot of flame baiting going on in that thread, that whole thread was nothing but a lite fuse just waiting to explode: And it did

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

Don't we have a zero tolerance policy against members insulting others?

---

Boss, if this policy is to hold true for the political section of the forum then you need to bump your above quote once or twice a month as a reminder.

---

It is - and has always been - a forum wide policy. No forum is exempt. People should be able to debate without hurling insults at one another.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

Sure thing you can read it here.

http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...0770;p=1#000010

---

Whoa!! I'm so glad that I stay out of those forums.

So, is there any reason why Prez wasn't temp-banned? Don't we have a zero tolerance policy against members insulting others? I glanced no less than a dozen personal insults against Silk in that post alone.

Apologies or not, I want Prez temp-banned (one week) effective immediately Remo.

---

Done, I can't argue with that no exceptions means no exceptions don't know what I was thinking.

quote:

---

It is - and has always been - a forum wide policy. No forum is exempt. People should be able to debate without hurling insults at one another.

---

ThatÔÇÖs what I strive for and itÔÇÖs getting better, unfortunately I didn't monitor that topic over the weekend or it wouldn't have went that far.

[Guest $iLk]

Prez I didn't see this post until now... although I was a little shocked at your outburst I understand it.

While shocked I didn't take it personally - I find it less than constructive to become emotionally tied to discussions of a political or religious nature - especially over the internet. Perhaps because of this I come across as 'cold' when discussing events of a national signifigance such as 9/11.

As I've stated, I'm hardly a tinfoil hat or conspiracy theorist - but found the document I opened the discussion with almost eerie in it's foreshadowing of events a little over a year later as well as current events.

While I do not see it as proof of a conspiracy to allow 9/11 - I do see it as compelling when arguing the intentions of the administration to capitalize on the political capital that was gained because of 9/11. I've mentioned PNAC before often to have it brushed off as "pffft conspiracy theory!" and merely chose to let the words of administration officials who were/are members of PNAC speak for themselves.

As upset as you got at the implications - I think it is important that anyone who supports the administration and it's goals be able to look them in the eye and know exactly what they believe. It troubled you - as well it should. It troubles me as well, and while I understand the 'shoot the messenger' response, I only ask that anyone, regardless of ideology or belief not be afraid to question those who are supposed to be working for us.

Especially Conservatives - who have been abandoned by the Republican Party - really need to ask themselves why they should support neo-conservatism if it means abandoning the Contract with America, the philosophy of Edmund Burke, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the principles of personal responsibility, limited government, and optimism.

I don't know about you, but "Terror,Terror,Terror - Nineleven,Nineleven,Nineleven" doesn't justify a disfunctional government with ideas that resemble Bolshevism and spending which dwarfs the wildest dreams of FDR.

We can agree to disagree if you wish - but just ask yourself why you get so upset at a Conservative who is attacking the soft underbelly of the Elephant as opposed to talking about Bill Clinton and Cigars 8 years later...

I don't dislike you Prez - and I know that sometimes I push your buttons very well. It's the 'inside knowledge' I have of the Conservative mind which lets me know exactly where to poke and prod to get people upset at what the Elites in Washington have done to the Republican Party.

It is in hopes of forcing accountability on those we put into office - because whether Republican or Democrat - I dislike cronyism and blind support of any political persuasion.

Let's get on the same page there at least. I understand the defensive responses you have when arguing about Bush because you're worried that "them lib'rals are getting in some punches against Dubya!" but we can't really be worried so much about the Democrats getting in office that we abandon our principles to the wind.

In short I accept your apology and understand you said some things you didn't mean. Just take a step back and recognize where I'm coming from.

The war against the mental disorder known and liberalism won't be won or lost on an internet forum. But the discussion of ideas is important - and it is important in any discussion to be able to detach yourself and recognize where the other person is coming from. Don't get yourself upset by becoming emotionally invested... it's not worth it - trust me.

And to do my part - I will steer cleer of 9/11 references wherever possible. I've got a whole bunch more to complain about.

Don't think I don't have complaints against Democrats... I just feel like you've got that argument covered very well yourself and there are not near enough people watching the right hand pull it's tricks while everyone focuses on the left hand moving.

[Supreme Cmdr]

Goddamn zealots. Always causing trouble in the forums.

[Cruis.In]

I ventured there once a while back and promptly left. But not before I started some good debates!

[teknocack]

Yeah, I had my own little outburst once and was soundly rebuked by Remo. Then I realized that those were not the forums for me. Lit fuse in a tinderbox more likely.

[Guest Remo Williams]

Now come on Cruis.in, Tek you can't let them scare you off that easy.

BTW Prez's temp ban was just removed he can now rejoin the fray.