On the avoidance of small wars

[JMA]

You made the accusation, not I.

Yes I did and I stand by it.

Certainly I appreciate both those factors. I would not have written what I did had I not. What you do not seem to 'appreciate' is that approach gives you more, not less, latitude to be egregious...

Nonsense. The line that you perceive to be crossed is too subjective. There are many statements made here which are only contestable to this very US-centric grouping. Outside this site they would be accepted as a simple statement of fact rather than raise a furore.

Uh, I hate to break this to you but your 99% is probably overstatement.

Following your logic (above) you made the statement now you substantiate it.

Regardless I agree with much of substance you wrote in that thread. I did not and do not agree with your posting style and use of words on many occasions, thus my complaints were directed at what I saw as a problem.

That was your problem not mine (yet you and others sought to make it mine). The truth often hurts and there is little to be said for pussy-footing around the issues.

That comment applies to several other threads as well; what you see as speaking the truth as you see it is often seen by others as condescending, arrogant and unnecessarily abrasive.

Yes I know if you can't deal with the facts then find some other angle to deal with the unwelcome information.

If your intent in to annoy, you're quite successful; if it is to teach or aid progress, I'm afraid that IMO and based on some comments from others on this and various threads (certainly including The UK in Afghanistan), you are not doing as well as one could hope.

Just stating the facts. How people respond to them is their problem. This (the council) is little more than a superficial discussion group. That balances well against the other aspects of this site. 'Teach'? Maybe there are some lurkers here who come for information and to learn, but for most of those active here their minds are already made up on most matters.

Yes I do and I agree that your use of the word was wrong and possibly uncalled for if not pathetic -- that usage is just what I and others repeatedly complain about to you to little avail. That exemplifies the ability to do some good can get lost in a poor choice of words -- and ignorance or misunderstanding what one sees casually in a photograph to make a standing broad jump at a wrong conclusion and then defend it unto death can be counterproductive...As the Actress said to the Bishop, "It's not what you said, it's how you said it, Ducks..."

Well I saw someone who regularly posts here recently called a poser with no similar response... which supports my view that such responses are more using any method to deal with the bearer of unwelcome news. That we must just accept as a fact and as I said to Blueblood that certainly among those who post here the majority of Americans are not emotionally mature enough to get into nitty gritty debates. Fortunately there are some who can and do. So there is really a choice here, does SWC want discussion to be vanilla and bland with the usual 'me-too's' and back slapping or is there supposed to be more to this.

The serious/sensitive/of nervous disposition people can stay in the blog and the Journal and there can be a simple warning when entering the discussions:

"In the discussion area people tell it as they see it. If you can't handle robust discussion don't go here."

You may think you're merely being forthright and not mincing words, others often seem to perceive it quite differently.I've seen no truth suppression here -- distortion, yes, suppression no.

Now whose problem is that?

distortion/suppression... call it what you like.

Though I'll acknowledge that blithefully ignoring the valid comment of others with a differing point of view and continually beating the same drum(s) in spite of some evidence that a re-look may be in order can be, in a sense, tantamount to suppression.

Valid comment in whose eyes? Restating the obvious is irritating? Yes, I suppose it would be. Its like twisting the knife.

Its like saying "yes that is true, you can say it once but any more and you start to make the people uncomfortable".

Let me point out, not as a Moderator, merely as another poster, that none of this has much to do with the thread topic. Nor, also off thread, did you answer my question about your accusatory foray that took us off-thread in the first place, thus it is safe to presume you have no such case to support your accusation.

And I say to you Ken, that it is improper to take part in a discussion and intervening as a moderator when it suits you. I am too old to naively expect fairness but you need to know that it is just plain wrong and inexcusable.

[Ken White]

Yes I did and I stand by it.

Well of course you do.

This is off thread, petty sniping with no substance and idle back and forth between two old, overweening egos with too little to do. I may be bored but I'm not that bored and it's almost certainly boring to everyone else so I'll leave you to it. Enjoy.