Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (70624)	1/31/2003 1:55:55 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

Amen, Win.

To: Win Smith who wrote (70624)	1/31/2003 2:16:19 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I've seen him ever do much in way of personal response. Win, the reason I have him on "Ignore" is because I hardly ever saw a personal response. I wonder if he ever reads the thread. Just post after post of every "anti-war" column he can find. he does not seem to discriminate for quality, just throws it all up against the wall. I read what John and you post because you separate the wheat from the chaff.

To: Win Smith who wrote (70624)	1/31/2003 2:28:52 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Well said, Win.

To: Win Smith who wrote (70624)	1/31/2003 5:45:45 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I took some time to think through my response to your post. I will do my best to explain myself since I did mean what I said. It was a mistake not to put Scott on ignore earlier. I had decided a while back that he was not a credible source and at that point I needed to ignore him. My mistake was to worry about staying open to a diversity of opinion. I already know that I do seek out dissenting opinions and listening to dissenting opinions from a source I don't consider credible was counterproductive. My mistake. Live and learn. As for delivering a public rebuke I meant what I said. Scott frequently posts stuff that is unacceptable to me and it needs to be challenged. As an example, the notion that the Bush administration is going to war with Iraq in order to bestow favors on Bush and Cheney's friends in the oil industry is a serious charge as is the implication that is well-deserving of impeachment. I have no problem with serious charges but they need to be backed up by both evidence and logic. Instead of offering either evidence or logic to support such a statement, Scott is off to the next serious charge. This is a discussion forum not a propaganda forum. At some point, a series of unsubstantiated serious charges stops being dissent and begins to be hatred. According to many of Scott's posts, people who support a war are morally corrupt, venal imperialists with nothing valid to say about the world. He brushes past people’s objections and counterarguments like they don't even exist. He demonstrated no respect for the people that he disagrees with. A long time ago, Scott stopped being about dissent and started being about hatred. As one of the people he express hate towards, I have no problem standing up and saying it is unacceptable. FWIW, I think exactly the same thing happened to the anti-war demonstrators, a chorus of unsubstantiated charges rose to the level of hate and I found that unacceptable as well. I also think that a substantial amount of Scott's posts have nothing to do with Foreign Affairs. They are domestic politics dressed up in Foreign Affair clothing. Knowledgeable and balanced people like tekboy, Ken Pollack and Tom Friedman all agree that there is an issue with Iraq. You might weigh all the factors and come down on the side of further containment or you might weigh them all and come down on the side of war. A reasonable person can come to the conclusion that war is necessary and justified. Given that a reasonable person might see the need for war, the argument that Bush's apparent decision to pursue war is driven by moral corruption form doesn't hold. Of course, some discussion of that position is warranted but continually making the moral corruption argument is not a FA matter; it is a domestic politics matter and belongs on a political thread. Baseless dissent is everyone's right but it is not appropriate to Foreign Affair discussions. I agree with Ken that there is this thread leans right most of the time and that balance is important. One source of this is that many moderate liberals are ambivalent. Today's editorial in The New Republic is an expression of that ambivalence. The moderate liberals are quiet right now. We end up with a broad range of rightist opinion combined with a range of strong liberal opinion. A volatile mix and Ken has his hands full. As with the Isreal/Palestine war, there are no angels. The right is as capable of everything I have said in the post. Everyone has their own point at which they say "this far but no furhter" and I reached that point with Scott. Paul