I think of Brad as two seperate people (maybe he's a gemini.) One person is the creator and administrator of JU. He does an excellent job of this....generally doesnt interfere with people unless they get really out of line. I will be eternally grateful to him for this fantastic site. He and the team have put a lot of work into it and we get to use it for nothing. How good is that?
The other Brad is the same as any other poster here and I believe he expects his articles to be treated as such.....you will see some pretty scathing comments on some of his posts same as anyone else.
I see what you are saying... I just find it odd that there is not a 1:1 correlation.
You're not a customer. You're not paying us for this site. So why exactly do you feel we (me or any admin) owe you anything? If you don't like something, you are free to leave to find a better place.
You don't owe anyone anything, but it would make everyone's life better if people (including you) didn't troll other people's posts.
Darius - I am sure you would find a rather more sympathetic audience over at the Democratic Underground or an audience more in keeping with your maturity level over at AOL kids. This is the last of your threads I will contribute any more to as it has simply become you trolling for controversy.
How is it immature to expect an Admin not to troll my posts, without even bothering to read it?
btw, it is telling that Darius seems incapable of making the distinction between a personal attack and disagreeing with him.
I do consider a thoughtless post like yours as a personal attack. The fact that you disagreed with me was fine, the problem was that you conveyed your opinion in a very disrespectful manner. It's a personal attack because you are saying "this person isn't even worth the time to read and respond to." Moreover, you didn't add anything to the discussion.
He wrote a post asking how we can call them barbarians. I think it's easy to call people who think it acceptable behavior to cut off the heads off of innocent people on television. I couldn't believe that someone would actually write such a dense article only days after that atrocity. That is why I wrote my comment in caps which I felt was quite to the point.
I really wonder If anyone bothered to read what I wrote. Like I said, the question was how can we call them barbarians, but then call our actions instances of mistreatment. I never said it was acceptable behavior. Please show me where I said that (good luck finding it, because I sure couldn't). I am quite curious as to where someone could so horribly misinterpret what I said. I wasn't going to do this but since you are here I might as well. Here is everything I wrote (everything else was copied and pasted):
Generally I am a very moderate person (independent, they call it), but statements like these really make me think. For one, how is one murder so barbaric, when what we have done is just instances of mistreatment? Here, let me show you the list of what has happened in our prisons:
Look at that key sentence. I didn't say "For one, how is one murder so barbaric," I said "For one, how is one murder so barbaric, when what we have done is just instances of mistreatment?"
That sentence is a comparison sentence, asking how is one x when another is y. Responding just to x totally avoids the point of the sentence.
To me, it seems like calling that one gruesome act barbaric (and it was terrible), but then downplaying the abuses by Americans, is extremely biased, and well... wrong. Sure, the Americans that preformed these torture acts were only a small amount of people, but so were the al-quieda that preformed the beheading. Additionally, we have an established system of order, where the higher commanders are responsible for what their underlings are doing. With all the technology we have, how can these abuses occur? It's one thing for terrorists to murder someone, but I say it's even worse for Americans, with all of their order and organization, to preform those horrendous acts of barbarity on Iraqi detainees. Are the abuses examples of why we need to NOT win the war in Iraq?
Again, my statement isn't "it seems like calling that one gruesome act barbaric (and it was terrible) is extremely biased, and well... wrong" but it is "it seems like calling that one gruesome act barbaric (and it was terrible), but then downplaying the abuses by Americans, is extremely biased, and well... wrong."
Moreover, that quote by that second senator is even more infuriating. He says we shouldn't allow people to check the military's human rights violations? How can that possibly help us? It is our duty to stop them, and people crawling over the prisons will help to speed the stoppage of violations. Then he throws that pathos in there "while our troops, our heros, are fighting and dying." This addition does not serve to help his statement at all. There is no connection to the troops fighting and people checking human rights violations. That is just a little pathos to make it seem like he is a good guy trying to support our troops.
Doesn't apply to the issue you are discussing.
Don't get me wrong, I am in full support of (almost) all of our troops in Iraq. But that does not give them ANY right to torture detainees, and then have the people back home claim that's any less barbaric than one gruesome murder.
Here, I say that y is equal to x. I never say that x is irrelevant, or that it is acceptable to be on television. Since it is clear that I belive that y is terrible, that makes it clear that I also think that x is terrible.
Now, for someone to equate my response to me coming in and name-calling the original poster speaks volumes.
You failed to add anything, while not even bothering to read the entire post! I interpret this as a fundamental act of disrespect. That is no different from name calling. Except that name calling doesn't pretend to be doing something else.
