Main Menu

A final thought.

Started by The Voice of Reason, October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Voice of Reason

We as a nation so often claim the moral high ground, yet we ignore it when our leaders lie (Clinton, Bush, Obama), we kick and scream about human rights abuses (Tjianamen Square), yet we skirt the rules so we can excuse them on a technicality (Guantanamo Bay Detention Center).  We speak of loyalty, integrity, dedication, service, and principle, yet we are perfidious, treacherous, apathetic, selfish and base.

I posted "Give everybody eat!" because there was a valid point to be made.  On the one hand, I have been met with nearly unanamous agreement, and on the other by people with small minds who seem to thing that because they speak faster, louder and with greater frequency that they somehow own the issues.

In my post, I directly acknowledged the shortcomings of my position, in particular:
1). that I hadn't been around in at least a year (more like a year and a half).
2). that I might merely be expressing sentiments already expressed by others, though the thoughts were my own.

I assumed that everyone was intelligent enough to detect the tongue-in-cheek nature of my opening, and I believe that most did, however the hostility exhibited by the noisy few indicates that I was wrong.  mea culpa.

If the issue has already been discussed, can we safely presume that every aspect of it has been discussed?  If it has been brought up again, isn't that evidence that everyone has not had their say?  Who is to say when an issue has been given a full hearing and should thereafter be censored?

At the very least, revisiting a "dead" issue would reinforce one side or another, but would go further by reminding people that there is dissent

In every case, my experience here has been that there are a few thoughtful participants mixed in with a great many obnoxious brats.

If our officer corps were composed entirely of people such as I've argued with, who disagree without offering a basis for their opinion, who think they have the right to speak for all, and who act without thinking the issues through (such as the safety program crusaders),
and who proceed from arrogance rather than deliberation, then this program would implode on itself.

For the few of you who have conducted yourselves in a dignified and intelligent manner, I thank you.  You know who you are.

Shame on the rest of you, and shame on me for trying to elevate you  to the level of scholarly debate.

I would like to request that the moderators lock this topic as they locked my previous topic before I could properly address the critics.
Asking a smart[buttocks] question is not the same as having a different opinion.

Hawk200

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMI posted "Give everybody eat!" because there was a valid point to be made. 

The point was already made almost two months ago. You came in as if it was something new to show to people.

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMOn the one hand, I have been met with nearly unanamous agreement,

Eight posts is almost unanimous? Must be a small world you live in. It's certainly not unanimous just because everybody didn't disagree.

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMand on the other by people with small minds who seem to thing that because they speak faster, louder and with greater frequency that they somehow own the issues.

The "issue" had already been discussed, bandied about, put to bed. Some of the regular posters on this board are already following up in the chain of command concerning the issue. Have you attempted this?

Second, you seem to call anyone that disagrees with you "small minded". Maybe you don't intend it as such, but it's viewed as hubris.

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMIn my post, I directly acknowledged the shortcomings of my position, in particular:
1). that I hadn't been around in at least a year (more like a year and a half).
2). that I might merely be expressing sentiments already expressed by others, though the thoughts were my own.

I assumed that everyone was intelligent enough to detect the tongue-in-cheek nature of my opening, and I believe that most did, however the hostility exhibited by the noisy few indicates that I was wrong.  mea culpa.

Have all your posts been intended as tongue in cheek? Because for the most part, they come across as high and mighty.

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMIf the issue has already been discussed, can we safely presume that every aspect of it has been discussed?  If it has been brought up again, isn't that evidence that everyone has not had their say?  Who is to say when an issue has been given a full hearing and should thereafter be censored?

We can't assume that every aspect of it has. You certainly didn't provide anything new. However, you acted as if your ideas were completely new. You could have saved yourself some blisters and burns by actually running a few searches, and looking at the readily available content here.

It's an annoyance to see old issues dragged up without anything new to contribute to the discussions. People want to see something fresh when they check in here, not same ole, same ole.

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMAt the very least, revisiting a "dead" issue would reinforce one side or another, but would go further by reminding people that there is dissent

In the case of your thread, there wasn't any dissent. People were just irritated by the appearance of a superior attitude.

You have a total of ten posts, most of which call people small minded, question their integrity and maturity, and suggesting a "pedophile edge" of CAP's main publication. You flip-flop between claiming unanimous agreement and censure for having a dissenting opinion. I'm disappointed, and a little disturbed, to think that you don't even realize the dichotomy.

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMIn every case, my experience here has been that there are a few thoughtful participants mixed in with a great many obnoxious brats.

I imagine that you consider the "dissenting opinions" as brats, and the "thoughtful participants" as the ones who haven't disagreed with you.

Quote from: The Voice of Reason on October 22, 2009, 02:03:04 AMI would like to request that the moderators lock this topic as they locked my previous topic before I could properly address the critics.

My own final post was probably the reason for the lock. I won't claim that I'm proud of it, but I will own up to it.

Second, this last sentence may give the appearance of trying to avoid any disagreement and making sure you get the last word.

We should all give consideration to our words. Sometimes, however, absolute bluntness gets people to think.

SDF_Specialist

Friend, are you even a member of CAP? I mean, from what I've read that you've posted, you certainly don't conduct yourself as an individual who has gone through the training provided by CAP, inherits the core values of CAP, or is proud to wear the uniform. Maybe you've had a few situations occur involving you, resulting in your resignation/termination. Myself, probably along with a few other members here on CAPTalk have been involved in situations that drove us to just say enough was a enough, and turn in our resignation letters. We are the people who should have a problem with CAP, with the "politics" involved in CAP, yet we still positively contribute here because we believe that not everyone in CAP is a bad guy/gal. All of your posts suggest you are angry. If that's the case, then I'm sorry you are. But don't come and knock an entire organization, and it's 50,000+ members because you had a bad day. Just relax.
SDF_Specialist

N Harmon

Two questions:

1. When did Bush lie?

2. What does this have to do with safety?
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: N Harmon on October 22, 2009, 04:25:35 PM
Two questions:

1. When did Bush lie?

2. What does this have to do with safety?

1. Lol!
2. Nothing.