For starters, Ken, I'd like to see a toning down of personal attacks. I know when I write, I often don't go back and screen every last phrase to see if it might say something to a super hawk that triggers their ire. Most of the posters here are Americans and they share the view that the murderers and shelterers of murderers should be eliminated.
How to do that, and how to prevent recurrence, and errors of the US government are places where disagreements occur. But too many times, I've seen people go ballistic, championing their patriotism as the only true patriotism and-how-dare-anyone-think-unlike-me-they-must-be-scum type posts do not add to the discussion; they intimidate discourse with their polemics.
As to the numerous articles, sometimes I see duplication, indicating the poster has not read back very far at all. Long, intense quoted analyses sometimes cause my eyes to glaze over and I skim, trying to get the nut of the piece. In such cases, it might work better to copypost the conclusions only, with a link to the analysis, so we can read them only if the conclusions are new enough to instigate an understanding of the logic.
And of course, one I'm guilty of: if the reply is merely complimenting another, a PM would be a better vehicle.
Of articles posted, I least like to see those that are a reiteration of "terrorist bad - kill them twice" from the same hawkish sources no-longer-taxpayer-supported whose thinking on Afghanistan clearly contributed to the mess. I refer to the Kilpatrick, Kemp, Bennett crowd; I'd rather hear from newer hawks like Wolfowitz. I'd be just as disgusted if Jane Fonda and Eugene McCarthy weighed in.... they knee-jerk uncontrollably without adding an original or current thought.
kevin@Icanblahblahblahwiththebestoft.hem |
