On Substance ... Or Lack Thereof ...

[cheri1122]

He didn't have Turtle on ignore. Turtle didn't ask the question. It was the one who was on ignore.

This is getting tiresome already: RLENT asked the question before he was put on 'ignore'. Several times, at least 2 of which are quoted in the above posts, wherein the 2 people involved are responding to each other. The 'ignore' came after, which is what I personally find scurrilous. [Good word, lol]

 

[Turtle]

And this is just my opinion, but nothing diminishes credibility like putting people on 'ignore', because you can't/won't engage in dialogue with them.

I respect your opinion, but I do disagree with that one. If you don't want to engage someone in conversation, for whatever reason, it doesn't necessarily diminish your credibility. It could be, and often is, simply a response out of realizing the futility of engaging certain people in a conversation. It's usually done to people with extraordinarily closed minds, like, for example, the extreme conspiracy theorists who can't even engage in intelligent conversation. Eventually you just get tired of them. By the same token, and this is where credibility comes into play, some of those with closed minds will put people on ignore who disagree with them because they cannot carry on a debate with someone who uses facts and logic where they want to use emotion. You can put someone on IGNORE or you can simply ignore and not acknowledge them.

In that vein, when children argue it's almost always from an emotional base rather than from a factual or experiential base. When they run out of facts to argue, which is rather quick, they are left with the emotional argument, which invariable moves to personal attacks to try and hurt them. These often mean making fun of someone's name, or telling them how bad or insignificant they are, or even threatening to tell mommy and daddy (some authority who will help them fight their battles) in order to make them feel bad. In that context, if you as an adult want to ignore someone or put them on ignore, then do it. Publicly announcing that you're going to put someone "on ignore" is the Internet equivalent of stomping your feet, making a mean ol' meanie face, and sticking your tongue out at them. And it accomplishes exactly the same thing online as it does when you do that in real life.

 

[muttly]

How can it be taken out of context when the statement was made, and fully quoted, within the original context, within the same thread?

It wasn't obvious to me that he had anyone on ignore. I seem to recall some comments and exchanges that couldn't have happened otherwise, but I could certainly be wrong on that.

It's certainly a possibility, I suppose, but that's a risk one takes when they put people on ignore.

The Iraq war wasn't even mentioned in his response. It appears like he was speaking about the military in a general sense.not specifically about Iraq and the constitution. Regarding entire threads staying in context. When does that ever happen?

 

[muttly]

This is getting tiresome already: RLENT asked the question before he was put on 'ignore'. Several times, at least 2 of which are quoted in the above posts, wherein the 2 people involved are responding to each other. The 'ignore' came after, which is what I personally find scurrilous. [Good word, lol]

Those are Pilgrim quotes that Rlent's has flagged. He is responding to Pilgrim only. If this is incorrect, someone could clarify, but I think Pilgrims quotes are responding to someone else.

 

[Turtle]

The Iraq war wasn't even mentioned in his response.

The entire thread was an about an Iraqi War veteran. Everything was in that context, within that frame.

It appears like he was speaking about the military in a general sense.not specifically about Iraq and the constitution.

Yes, he has since cleared that confusion up rather nicely.

Regarding entire threads staying in context. When does that ever happen?

That thread did, at least up through the relevant posts in question.

He didn't have Turtle on ignore. Turtle didn't ask the question. It was the one who was on ignore.

I'm not gonna refer to RLENT as Neo. Nope, not gonna do it.

 

[RLENT]

This is precisely why this individual has been and will continue to be the sole occupant of my Ignore List (except for this temporary and final exception). The only reason I'm responding now is because Turtle gave it credence in a different thread.

Actually, he too, stated his interest in what your answer would be to the question that I posed - in the original thread where the question was asked:

Turtle's curiosity as to an answer to the question posed

For those who are willing to go back and review this year-old thread - and there probably aren't many - it's easily understood that this excessively verbose load of horsedung has no purpose other than take my comment out of context, misrepresent it and use it to launch a typically nonsensical ad hominem attack and defend another goofy Ron Paul quote.

Actually, that post had as it's primary purpose, getting you on the record - one way or another - as to whether you thought that those who invaded Iraq and participated in an illegal war of aggression were "protecting the Constitution" ...

(... or supporting and defending it if you prefer ...)

My post was a response to one by Turtle (as seen in its full context)...

...had NOTHING to do with the justification of the Iraq war, and this was obvious to anyone who followed the flow of the conversation.

While I - and I'm sure many others - realize that your comment was not offered up in response to a question asking you to justify the Iraq war, nevertheless a consequence of you offering it up was that you were specifically asked whether you felt that those who invaded Iraq and participated in an illegal war of aggression were "protecting the Constitution" ...

Clearly, this is one of the downsides of making public statements and participating in a conversation: people may inquire as to the broader ramifications or logical consequences which flow from the statements one makes ...

Now ... I do realize that some folks will find that to be very, very disturbing - because it's possible that such questions may lead to places that some might prefer to avoid addressing with complete candor ...

Those of us who served - including those in the modern all-volunteer military - are required to take the following Oath of Enlistment (bold emphasis mine):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Given 20-20 hindsight I suppose I should have used the exact wording "support and defend" instead of "protect" to insulate myself from the nitpickers. But I'll bet most of us who have served in the military understood my drift.

Oh ... your choice of wording likely wouldn't have saved you from being queried in regard to this matter - because the underlying principles and premise remain essentially the same - regardless of the specific wording that was used from your proffered choices.

But what's pathetic is the extent to which trolls will go in advertising their ignorance to take cheap shots with inflammatory rhetoric - even when it has no substance or basis in fact.

Well, you could have put an end to any speculation as to where you stood on the specific question I posed to you some 15 months or so ago ...

Instead, you chose to avoid answering it ... despite the fact that others besides myself have raised the issue of a lack of a direct answer ...

It appears that even now - after 15 months of avoidance - you have still managed to avoid answering the original question in a direct, unambiguous manner.

The reasons for that could be several, to include:

1. You disagree with my framing of the question (as an illegal war of aggression) and wish to avoid addressing that framing - like it was kryptonite - perhaps due to what is now largely known, in hindsight.

2. You actually do believe that invading Iraq was "protecting the Constitution" ... but are unwilling to state so publicly in an unambiguous manner ... perhaps because you recognize that it may be an unsupportable position ...

In the future I intend to continue ignoring said comments and posts, the same way I ignore the tantrums of my 5 year-old grandson.

Well, quite frankly, it sounds - given the emotional language used in your post above, and your stated intent - like you are actually taking lessons from your 5 year-old grandson ...

Generally speaking, I'm of the opinion that there is much that adults could learn from children ... but the lesson you appear to have embraced is not one I would personally recommend ...

 

[RLENT]

In all fairness, the entire thread was in the context of the Iraq War, and you made the comment above within that context, then you were asked if protecting the Constitution was what they were doing in invading Iraq, a yes/no question. As a second-parter question, you were asked how in invading Iraq was protecting the Constitution. It's all plainly laid out in the thread starter or anyone can go and read the entire thread. Your comments were not taken out of context nor used as an ad hominem. It was, and still is, a fair question.

And one that still - IMO - not been given a clear, direct, and unambiguous answer.

No one accused you of making such a statement, per se, but rather wanted clarification as to whether or not that's what you were implying by your comments. When you failed to answer that question, on several occasions, it became a matter of quasi-importance, because it appeared you were avoiding the question.

Yup ...

You've now answered it by saying that you made those comments not within the context of the thread, but within the context of all military personnel in general. That seems to imply that no, the Iraq invasion wasn't necessarily done to "protect, or to "support and defend" the Constitution.

I'm satisfied with that. Thank you. All I was looking for is a clarification, which you've now given.

I still say that he's avoided answering the question.

It will be interesting to see if your assessment and conclusion in the quote immediately above are addressed - if they are addressed at all - in such a way so as to confirm your conclusion ... or whether they get the ambiguity of a continued tap dance and the soft-shoe shuffle ...

 

[RLENT]

You know you're not going to get an answer to that, right? If you push, you'll get excuses. Keep pushing, eventually you'll get ignored.

It's a phenomena - that some at least - have a long-term history of embracing ...

The excuse that's often given - if one is given at all - usually has to do with some slight (real or imagined) that the non-responder has seized onto as a justification to avoid responding. That this is an embrace of victimhood apparently doesn't seem to cross their minds ...

Either that or it's an assumption of moral superiority, which some folks believe allows them to avoid having to explain or defend their words or beliefs ...

In either instance, it's just a ruse ... a red herring ... to avoid having to answer up the merits on an issue of substance, or a point raised ...

And you know what the honest answer would be: "As long as the President is Obama, I'd be celebrating!"

LOL ... hopefully that's not true for very many ... unfortunately, the actual number may be far more than many would dare to imagine.

 

[RLENT]

Disagree. It was taken out of context. By the way, it was obvious to anyone that that he had him on ignore. There was even a previous post that alluded that he was on ignore, a long time ago. Hard to believe the person that repeatedly asked the question in various threads didn't know this. Curious as to why someone would ask the question over and over again to someone he knows is on ignore.

Because having someone on "ignore" doesn't necessarily mean that one is actually being ignored - the feature allows one to selectively view the posts of someone that has been placed on "ignore".

Most often the claim - made publicly - that one has someone on "ignore" is used as a weapon, usually - by my observation - in terms of a final response to some substantive issue or point that the party claiming to being ignoring another would prefer to avoid addressing with any degree of candor.

Could possibly be to make him look bad by appearing to not respond to a specific question. A way, as Cheri mentioned before, to diminish credibility. Scurrilous, IMO.

Well, from where I sit, it seems more hilarious than scurrilous ...

Of course, that's just me ... and clearly I do have a vested interest in this instance ...

 

[RLENT]

Funny, that's just how it usually happens: keep asking for an answer, get ignored for real.

And this is just my opinion, but nothing diminishes credibility like putting people on 'ignore', because you can't/won't engage in dialogue with them.

I think the "ignore" feature needs a new, more appropriate name - in light of what is apparently the most common reason for its use:

The Self-Validating and Self-Reinforcing "Bubble" Defense Mechanism

The Bubble is warm and safe ... inside there are no disturbing thoughts or other entities to threaten, or conflict with, one's devoutly cherished preconceived notions and worldview ...

Might bear some similarity and resemblance to a place the folks employing it once inhabited ... very early in their young (at the time) lives ...

 

[RLENT]

I'm not gonna refer to RLENT as Neo. Nope, not gonna do it.

Can get Morpheus instead then ?

I think I'd really rather have that one anyways ...

 

[layoutshooter]

"Can you imagine drones from other countries flying over America and taking people out?"

Very easy to imagine and not at all out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Pilgrim]

This is getting tiresome already: RLENT asked the question before he was put on 'ignore'. Several times, at least 2 of which are quoted in the above posts, wherein the 2 people involved are responding to each other. The 'ignore' came after, which is what I personally find scurrilous. [Good word, lol]

You simply don't know what you're talking about. He was put on my Ignore list well before the Chris Kyle thread started. In case you don't know how that feature works, posts by those on "Ignore" are not seen by the member using that feature unless they are shown as quotes in another person's post. Nowhere is it written that we have to respond to any post for that matter, especially those that are provocative, inflammatory or generally trolling in nature.

 

[RLENT]

... posts by those on "Ignore" are not seen by the member using that feature unless they are shown as quotes in another person's post....

Or unless you decide to click the button that lets you look at them ...

 

[muttly]

Actually, he too, stated his interest in what your answer would be to the question that I posed - in the original thread where the question was asked:

Turtle's curiosity as to an answer to the question posed


Actually, that post had as it's primary purpose, getting you on the record - one way or another - as to whether you thought that those who invaded Iraq and participated in an illegal war of aggression were "protecting the Constitution" ...

(... or supporting and defending it if you prefer ...)


While I - and I'm sure many others - realize that your comment was not offered up in response to a question asking you to justify the Iraq war, nevertheless a consequence of you offering it up was that you were specifically asked whether you felt that those who invaded Iraq and participated in an illegal war of aggression were "protecting the Constitution" ...

Clearly, this is one of the downsides of making public statements and participating in a conversation: people may inquire as to the broader ramifications or logical consequences which flow from the statements one makes ...

Now ... I do realize that some folks will find that to be very, very disturbing - because it's possible that such questions may lead to places that some might prefer to avoid addressing with complete candor ...


Oh ... your choice of wording likely wouldn't have saved you from being queried in regard to this matter - because the underlying principles and premise remain essentially the same - regardless of the specific wording that was used from your proffered choices.


Well, you could have put an end to any speculation as to where you stood on the specific question I posed to you some 15 months or so ago ...

Instead, you chose to avoid answering it ... despite the fact that others besides myself have raised the issue of a lack of a direct answer ...

It appears that even now - after 15 months of avoidance - you have still managed to avoid answering the original question in a direct, unambiguous manner.

The reasons for that could be several, to include:

1. You disagree with my framing of the question (as an illegal war of aggression) and wish to avoid addressing that framing - like it was kryptonite - perhaps due to what is now largely known, in hindsight.

2. You actually do believe that invading Iraq was "protecting the Constitution" ... but are unwilling to state so publicly in an unambiguous manner ... perhaps because you recognize that it may be an unsupportable position ...


Well, quite frankly, it sounds - given the emotional language used in your post above, and your stated intent - like you are actually taking lessons from your 5 year-old grandson ...

Generally speaking, I'm of the opinion that there is much that adults could learn from children ... but the lesson you appear to have embraced is not one I would personally recommend ...

Regarding Turtle's post also asking about clarification about the Iraq war, and defending the constitution. If you look at his post, it is not directed toward Pilgrim to answer. (Exilgrims comment in a quote box)It is directed for ANYONE to answer. Having Rlent's on Ignore and the ORIGINAL question not seen, there is no frame of reference of who originally asked the question.

 

[RLENT]

Regarding Turtle's post also asking about clarification about the Iraq war, and defending the constitution. If you look at his post, it is not directed toward Pilgrim to answer.

Not explicitly by name ... as in: "Pilgrim, I have a question for you ..."

But if you switch the "Display" for the thread to "Threaded Mode" you will see that that specific post of Turtle's is in reply to a post of Pilgrim's ...

It is directed for ANYONE to answer.

That's an inference/conclusion you are drawing - based on the absence of any particular individual being specifically named or addressed in Turtle's post.

It may not be a correct inference however.

Having Rlent's on Ignore and the ORIGINAL question not seen, there is no frame of reference of who originally asked the question.

That assumes no one was peeking ...

 

[muttly]

Because having someone on "ignore" doesn't necessarily mean that one is actually being ignored - the feature allows one to selectively view the posts of someone that has been placed on "ignore".

Most often the claim - made publicly - that one has someone on "ignore" is used as a weapon, usually - by my observation - in terms of a final response to some substantive issue or point that the party claiming to being ignoring another would prefer to avoid addressing with any degree of candor.


Well, from where I sit, it seems more hilarious than scurrilous ...

Of course, that's just me ... and clearly I do have a vested interest in this instance ...

I don't know if Pilgrim publicly stated from the beginning you were on ignore a long time ago. I just vaguely remember a post where he responded to something you had posted . The only reason was because your quote was in some else's reply . This was a few years ago. Which begs the question. At what point did you realize you were on ignore?Was is after the first few posts a few years ago? After the first 30 posts? Hundred posts? When? Just curious. One other question. When you found out that you were on ignore, whenever that was, what was your objective in asking a question over and over again to someone who was on ignore?

 

[muttly]

Not explicitly by name ... as in: "Pilgrim, I have a question for you ..."

But if you switch the "Display" for the thread to "Threaded Mode" you will see that that specific post of Turtle's is in reply to a post of Pilgrim's ...


That's an inference/conclusion you are drawing - based on the absence of any particular individual being specifically named or addressed in Turtle's post.

It may not be a correct inference however.


That assumes no one was peeking ...

Yes, I know Turtle was piggy backing your question and referencing him. Pilgrim however didn't know he was being referenced because he didn't see the original question.

 

[RLENT]

I don't know if Pilgrim publicly stated from the beginning you were on ignore a long time ago. I just vaguely remember a post where he responded to something you had posted. The only reason was because your quote was in some else's reply. This was a few years ago. Which begs the question. At what point did you realize you were on ignore? Was is after the first few posts a few years ago? After the first 30 posts? Hundred posts? When? Just curious.

Since I'm not logged in under Pilgrim's screen name and looking at his computer screen I don't actually know that I am on "ignore".

One other question. When you found out that you were on ignore, whenever that was, what was your objective in asking a question over and over again to someone who was on ignore?

In light of my answer to you immediately above, the premise inherent in your question (highlighted in bold above) - at least from my perspective - is actually flawed ... nevertheless I will answer as though it weren't:

That question has already been answered previously: to get an answer - on the record - as whether or not Pilgrim felt that those who invaded Iraq and participated in an illegal war of aggression were "protecting the Constitution" ... and if so, then how ...

It's a (pair of) question(s) that - from my opinion - he has still managed to avoid answering ...

Fifteen months ... and still duckin' ...

 

[RLENT]

Yes, I know Turtle was piggy backing your question and referencing him. Pilgrim however didn't know he was being referenced because he didn't see the original question.

That's your assumption ...