The End of the Search

[Steph700]

Scott_Lafrance:

I didn’t call anyone a troll. The posting is a troll. Look it up in at dictionary.com. To save you the trouble, I’ll post it here. Please don’t play the indignant holy roller around me, I’ve been around here too long and seen to much to take it seriously.

**troll **v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting designed to attract predictable responses; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll.

Doesn’t change the fact that the moderators have CLEARLY said this type of behavior is unacceptable. I am not an indignant holy roller (here we go again with the name calling, grow up)- I just like to see that people are treated fairly and given a chance to voice their opinion.

You’ve been around too long to take what seriously? Other people’s opinion if it’s different from your own? Your ability to belittle and name call? Since when does how long someone has been on the forum give them the right to behave this way? If this was the sort of logic we went by, I have been a member of this site longer than you. Doesn’t grant me any special privileges and I wouldn’t assume them either. That’s ridiculous. Seriously- give people a chance, and don’t talk down to me.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Steph, I’ve read your posts and a signigicant majority of what you have to say is salient, lucid and valid. I didn’t call YOU a holy roller, per se, I said don’t play the part of one. I’ve been around too long to be taken aback when someone claims to be afronted by my pointed commentary, especially when it is cogent. Review the initial post and tell me that it isn’t intended to incite inflammatory remarks. The repeated use of derogatory name-calling and misquoting of facts are key indicators of a “trolling post”. If you are that afronted by my “unacceptable behavior”, then do us all a favor and report me to the moderators. If they indeed find my comments unwarranted, they will suspend me as I deserve. I accept that as a possible consequence of speaking my mind. I think that you will find, however, if you take a gander at the originators history of posting, that this isn’t an isolated incident.

Actually, I used to go under the name Apologia100, and that makes me, the person, one of the longest residents on this forum. Does that give me a pass to behave in a callous or cruel manner. Absolutely not. It does give me the perspective to point out when someone, especially a new poster, comes here with the intention of ruffling feathers. I claim no special prerogative with the administrators or the moderators, but I think that for the most part, when I call out a trouble-maker, they know that I am pretty much on target. If you don’t like that and want to consider me a know-it-all or a tattle-tale, go right ahead.

PS, you might want to be wary of how you accuse of “talking down” to, because some might consider you guilty of it yourself.

In peace,

Steph700:

Doesn’t change the fact that the moderators have CLEARLY said this type of behavior is unacceptable. I am not an indignant holy roller (here we go again with the name calling, grow up)- I just like to see that people are treated fairly and given a chance to voice their opinion.

You’ve been around too long to take what seriously? Other people’s opinion if it’s different from your own? Your ability to belittle and name call? Since when does how long someone has been on the forum give them the right to behave this way? If this was the sort of logic we went by, I have been a member of this site longer than you. Doesn’t grant me any special privileges and I wouldn’t assume them either. That’s ridiculous. Seriously- give people a chance, and don’t talk down to me.

 

[Brad]

Scott_Lafrance:

Brad, this whole thread is a waste of copper wire and electrons. Look at the profile of the originator.

While that may be true, bad and untruthful ideas often expand as fast or faster than true and good ideas, thus the dirty work of refutation is sometimes necessary - although, I agree, we shouldn’t invest an inordinate amount of time on poppycock.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Clinton was Bush’s authority for WMDs? I’m sure he was not!

You concluded that Clinton’s lies were no big deal next to Bush’s lies. I’m pointing out that if you believe Bush “lied” about WMD, you must also say that Clinton “lied” about WMD, making that level of “lying” equivalent. All the other Clinton lies are at least over the top.

Richardols:

So it all started with Clinton, huh. Indeed? I though lying politicians were, if not the norm, then part of politics from the days of the Continental Congress.

Then what is your point? The fact that China gained much intelligence on weapons during the Clinton years is not a particularly good thing either.

 

[Brad]

Norwich:

So because Clinton was a liar and was immoral, that means Bush can be as well. Does that also mean that as Nixon was a liar, crook and cheat clinton can (oops apparently he already is), Bush can be, (oops you said he can be the same as Clinton) Gets complicated dosen’t it?

It gets complicated only when you insist on obfuscating and twisting clear points.

The point is that if Bush “lied” about WMDs then Clinton also “lied” about them. The fact of the matter is everyone on earth believed Iraq had WMDs because, at some times, they did have them. Calling this assessment of intelligence a greater “lie” than Clinton’s blatant disregard for truth when it conflicts with his conveniencent womanizing escapades, attempting to make a mockery of our judicial system and giving kids across America a reason to be immoral and lie about it, is intellectually dishonest at best. Bush did not “lie” about WMDs.

 

[Brad]

Lance:

The WMD’s are in Syria. We gave Sadam 10 years to hide them there.

I tend to agree with this.

 

[Mijoy2]

I hope it is okay to express my opinion here.

President Bush invaded Iraq on the principle cause of Suddam Hussein possesing weapons of mass destruction.
There were/are none.

All other reasons for invading were possed as secondary causes regardless of how evil these atrocities were.

None of these other atrocities were ever put on the table as a potential reason in and of itself for invading, regardless of thier respective worthiness of an invasion. This is completely beside the point.

We are in Iraq under false pretenses. Our President is responsible. I only wish, in retrospect, that President Bush either posed Husseins human atrocities as a valid reson for invading Iraq irrespective of whether they possessed WMD. It may have taken a more agressive effort on the part of his administration to build such a case with the American people BUT, it would have legitimized our invasion. Or, I wish he’d fully admit to his administrations failure. Mistakes are not in and of themselves wrong. Failure to own up to them is.

As a Catholic who visits these threads I find it disturbing, at best, to witness the significantly greater percentage of regulars here who back our president 100% and totally disregard his monumental failure in fully admitting that we were wrong. To me it shows partisianship at any cost.

President Bush was wrong.

 

[Apologia100]

Steph700:

If this was the sort of logic we went by, I have been a member of this site longer than you.

Just in case there was any doubt as to my tenure here at the CA Forums.

 

[FightingFat]

Scott_Lafrance:

Disregard. Troll.

Or to say it another way…Lalalalalalalalalalalala…I’m not listening…lalalalalalalalala

 

[Steph700]

Scott_Lafrance:

Steph, I’ve read your posts and a signigicant majority of what you have to say is salient, lucid and valid. I didn’t call YOU a holy roller, per se, I said don’t play the part of one. I’ve been around too long to be taken aback when someone claims to be afronted by my pointed commentary, especially when it is cogent. Review the initial post and tell me that it isn’t intended to incite inflammatory remarks. The repeated use of derogatory name-calling and misquoting of facts are key indicators of a “trolling post”. If you are that afronted by my “unacceptable behavior”, then do us all a favor and report me to the moderators. If they indeed find my comments unwarranted, they will suspend me as I deserve. I accept that as a possible consequence of speaking my mind. I think that you will find, however, if you take a gander at the originators history of posting, that this isn’t an isolated incident.

Actually, I used to go under the name Apologia100, and that makes me, the person, one of the longest residents on this forum. Does that give me a pass to behave in a callous or cruel manner. Absolutely not. It does give me the perspective to point out when someone, especially a new poster, comes here with the intention of ruffling feathers. I claim no special prerogative with the administrators or the moderators, but I think that for the most part, when I call out a trouble-maker, they know that I am pretty much on target. If you don’t like that and want to consider me a know-it-all or a tattle-tale, go right ahead.

PS, you might want to be wary of how you accuse of “talking down” to, because some might consider you guilty of it yourself.

In peace,

In peace? In PEACE? you must be joking! Don’t try and throw that in at the end to make everything sound nice and sweet. I don’t see much of anything related to peace in what you said above.

As far as ruffling feather goes, I am on this site nearly every day- reading more than posting- and my feathers get ruffled all the time. There are people who love to post articles that are so ridiculous that I find them unbelievable. BUT, that doesn’t mean that I have a right to treat them poorly, call them names (or label their posts as trolls, or whatever)- no matter how much “perspective” I have in the matter. It’s always good to hear lots of opinions on different subjects, not just opinions one personally agrees with.

You may think of your words as “pointed commentary” but others may take it as rude and offensive. While I do not doubt that you have intelligent contributions to make to the discussion here, I do think that the way you handle others is extremely important. It may also be easier to just be polite about things than telling me to “do everyone a favor” and report you.

And yes, I do consider it talking down to me when you say I don’t know what a term means (which may very well be the case- I am always learning) and say “why don’t you look it up? I’ll save you the trouble and post it here for you” and call me a holy roller. There is just no need to talk to me that way- or anybody. I get enough disrespect in my life without having to put up with it on a Catholic forum. You are not the only one who acts this way- there are plenty of others who are disrespectful- but I have really had enough. All I’m asking is that people be respectful and fair.

 

[Apologia100]

Maybe you should start with your own behavior. The last thing that this forum needs is a nanny. And when I say, in peace, I mean it. It isn’t eye candy. I simply expounded my reasoning for labeling the post a troll, you insist on chewing me out like a 3rd grade teacher. Maybe you can’t take criticism, although you seem perfectly content to dole it out. Stop commenting about the speck in my eye when there is a log in your own. You certainly haven’t the prerogative to tell ME to be more congenial when you seem unwilling to do the same yourself. However, for the sake of the peace of these forums, I will concede and agree that my initial comment regarding the nature of this post was unwarranted. Thank you for admonishing me and reminding me of the forums rules. I hope that you are able to regain your grip on charity and display a little more graciousness to the next person who displays the human tendency to make a mistake.

Steph700:

In peace? In PEACE? you must be joking! Don’t try and throw that in at the end to make everything sound nice and sweet. I don’t see much of anything related to peace in what you said above.

As far as ruffling feather goes, I am on this site nearly every day- reading more than posting- and my feathers get ruffled all the time. There are people who love to post articles that are so ridiculous that I find them unbelievable. BUT, that doesn’t mean that I have a right to treat them poorly, call them names (or label their posts as trolls, or whatever)- no matter how much “perspective” I have in the matter. It’s always good to hear lots of opinions on different subjects, not just opinions one personally agrees with.

You may think of your words as “pointed commentary” but others may take it as rude and offensive. While I do not doubt that you have intelligent contributions to make to the discussion here, I do think that the way you handle others is extremely important. It may also be easier to just be polite about things than telling me to “do everyone a favor” and report you.

And yes, I do consider it talking down to me when you say I don’t know what a term means (which may very well be the case- I am always learning) and say “why don’t you look it up? I’ll save you the trouble and post it here for you” and call me a holy roller. There is just no need to talk to me that way- or anybody. I get enough disrespect in my life without having to put up with it on a Catholic forum. You are not the only one who acts this way- there are plenty of others who are disrespectful- but I have really had enough. All I’m asking is that people be respectful and fair.

 

[Brad]

Mijoy2:

As a Catholic who visits these threads I find it disturbing, at best, to witness the significantly greater percentage of regulars here who back our president 100% and totally disregard his monumental failure in fully admitting that we were wrong. To me it shows partisianship at any cost.

President Bush was wrong.

The greater percentage of regulars here defend the war on the basis of human rights, Hussein’s well documented ties to terrorism, and his use of WMDs in the past.

Those that have been liberated from the monster that was the regime of Hussein don’t really care whether Bush, Clinton, Putin and all other world leaders were right or wrong about WMDs.

As Catholics, we should care about all human beings that are oppressed, tortured, and killed. The failure would have been to not invade. Your assessment that this is only blind loyalty to Bush is untrue on this basis.

Frequently, the accusations of parisanship come from those that wish to justify voting for politicians that fund and support abortion.

I prefer to drop the labels and political party designations and discuss whether it was right or wrong from a Christian perspective.

 

[Richardols]

Lance:

The WMD’s are in Syria. We gave Sadam 10 years to hide them there.

Well, you’d do well to report that to the authorities. They’ve given up the search and they could use your information to renew their efforts.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Well, you’d do well to report that to the authorities. They’ve given up the search and they could use your information to renew their efforts.

The authorities are still looking, believe me.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

As Catholics, we should care about all human beings that are oppressed, tortured, and killed. The failure would have been to not invade.

Then, as a Catholic, you would back one invasion after another to liberate those who are oppressed, tortured, and killed anywhere in the world? There are dozens of oppressive regimes worldwide. Which one will you start with and more importantly, how long and how expensive a crusade are you willing to make this liberation of the oppressed?

Frequently, the accusations of parisanship come from those that wish to justify voting for politicians that fund and support abortion.

Perhaps a politician like Mr. Bush who supports some abortion. Now that the elections are over, he stated that in his quest for conservative judges, he will not require any to be anti-abortion.

I prefer to drop the labels and political party designations and discuss whether it was right or wrong from a Christian perspective.

A Christian persepective as you see it, of course. It’s like engaging in Apologetics. We Catholics read the Bible and the Fundamentalists read the Bible, but we can hardly agree on what is right or wrong doctrine except from our own perspectives.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Then, as a Catholic, you would back one invasion after another to liberate those who are oppressed, tortured, and killed anywhere in the world? There are dozens of oppressive regimes worldwide. Which one will you start with and more importantly, how long and how expensive a crusade are you willing to make this liberation of the oppressed?

I’m not talking about hypotheticals. I’m talking about Iraq, where upwards of 500,000 were killed and millions tortured - I don’t know how many raped. As a Catholic, what is the value of these lives in cost?

Richardols:

Perhaps a politician like Mr. Bush who supports some abortion. Now that the elections are over, he stated that in his quest for conservative judges, he will not require any to be anti-abortion.

That is because he wants judges that pro-life and competent, not just pro-life. Kerry said he would only choose judges that were pro-death, excluding any possible pro-life judges, even if they had a spotless judicial and academic record.

Richardols:

A Christian persepective as you see it, of course. It’s like engaging in Apologetics. We Catholics read the Bible and the Fundamentalists read the Bible, but we can hardly agree on what is right or wrong doctrine except from our own perspectives.

If I were to discuss right and wrong from a Christian perspective with you, obviously I would be giving you my perspective and you would be giving me your perspective. Is there any other way of doing it?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And what good would that do, exactly. Ask Syria if its okay to tear their country apart to find illegal weapons stashed there to avoid the UN? I’m sure that if we ask nice enough, they’ll just give them up without a fight.

Richardols:

Well, you’d do well to report that to the authorities. They’ve given up the search and they could use your information to renew their efforts.

 

[Lance]

Steph700:

In peace? In PEACE? you must be joking! Don’t try and throw that in at the end to make everything sound nice and sweet. I don’t see much of anything related to peace in what you said above.-------

----- I get enough disrespect in my life without having to put up with it on a Catholic forum. You are not the only one who acts this way- there are plenty of others who are disrespectful- but I have really had enough. All I’m asking is that people be respectful and fair.

I was taught that respect is earned not given.

 

[jlw]

Richardols:

Well, you’d do well to report that to the authorities. They’ve given up the search and they could use your information to renew their efforts.

Me: they have a pretty good idea what became of them. Syria or Russia probably, but pursuing them now is biting off more than they can chew logistically and POLITICALLY.

They need to stablize Iraq. But by this time next year, look for reports to be leaked out in methodical fashion that the WMD is thought to be in Syria or in Iran. My gut says that if Russia was involved, it will be hush hush, and they will “help” us locate the weapons in exchange for not revealing their complicity with Saddam.

Conspiracy theory or common sense musings???

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

jlw:

Me: they have a pretty good idea what became of them. Syria or Russia probably, but pursuing them now is biting off more than they can chew logistically and POLITICALLY.

They need to stablize Iraq. But by this time next year, look for reports to be leaked out in methodical fashion that the WMD is thought to be in Syria or in Iran. My gut says that if Russia was involved, it will be hush hush, and they will “help” us locate the weapons in exchange for not revealing their complicity with Saddam.

Conspiracy theory or common sense musings???

Theoretical common sense conspiracy musings.