posted
I've got one too!: I once prepared jalapeņo poppers without any protection for my hands and got a lot of jalapeņo oil on my fingers which I later transferred to my eyes, lips, nose, and other "delicate" tissues. Every time after that I wore gloves.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I've got one too!: I once prepared jalapeņo poppers without any protection for my hands and got a lot of jalapeņo oil on my fingers which I later transferred to my eyes, lips, nose, and other "delicate" tissues. Every time after that I wore gloves.
Heh, that works even better than my example by virtue of being so concise.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geography changes little over time and in a somewhat predictable matter.
Seems to me that Washington was running off of personal experience rather than his knowledge of the time before his.
Come now you must have a better example than that. ------------------ See the topic of history had switched from way-back-when to it-happened-to-me-3-years-ago-so-it-counts-as-history, but I was getting critiqued on American History y World History, these books teach you something as individuals that you can only use as a whole ._____.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
History just means "past events." If I'd read that Harriet Tubman had a similar experience with jalapeņos I may have been similarly moved to seek protective handwear.
Learning from one's past generally means not repeating mistakes. Because of this, it's going to be hard to point out major events influenced by a historical perspective because the major events, if so informed, wouldn't happen in the first place.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you just refered to history as not so useful compared to personal experience which in a way is history in it's own right, but not close to the history I was talking about .__.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rawrain: So now history is important if it happens to you? Washington wasn't interested in why the Indians fought as they did, he just knew what the results were and adopted it.
Further, Washington was relying on the lessons of history when he didn't accept the crown. I'm sure he would have reigned as king very similarly to how he governed as President. Yet he would have been versed in what happened to King Charles I just over 100 years ago. A bloody revolution, a king executed, a charismatic radical grabbing the reigns, civil war over who the true successor was. Instead he refused the crown, and instead became our only president elected by acclamation, (something we would never stomach today).
Is it possible Washington would have refused the crown because of some mixture of modesty or lack of desire to be a king? Sure, but it was still a shared knowledge of Britain's history that guided the founding fathers when they discontinued titles based on heredity, setup a bicameral legislature, a judiciary, and still retaining the concept of an executive branch, while modifying the form.
I think our government as setup by the founding fathers was a triumph, don't you?
Edit: This is why it frustrates me to no end when conservatives say things like, "Why should we do things like they do in Europe, this is America, we have to do it the American way!" A student of history can easily see how America from its inception was in large part a conglomerate of good ideas from Europe.
double edit: Further, it was the failure to remain aware of the lessons we learned from guerrilla warfare back in the 1700's, and again after the Spanish American war in the Philippines, that landed us in Vietnam with us getting frustrated that the Vietcong wouldn't "Come out and fight!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To bring things back together, history (broadly speaking) supports Rawrain's other concerns about the expenses and aftershocks of this intervention. France helped us in the American Revolution, but busted their national treasury to do so, which was a major cause of the French Revolution. Sometimes busting the national treasury to defeat a foe is worthwhile (see Britain in WW2), sometimes much less so. One of the main points of the President's speech last night was that we _won't_ spare any expense to get rid of Ghaddafi.
As for the bullet in the head--the trick is getting close enough, and the plan actually succeeding. German officers who were in the room with Hitler couldn't kill him. The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro numerous times, and it only strengthened his hand.
There is enormous symbolism and legitimacy in Libyans getting rid of Ghaddafi themselves. How would we feel if La Fayette instead of Washington had accepted Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown? Or if the French had offed King George? Not the same thing, I know, but this is a time for creating heroes that can have legitimacy in the new regime, and those heroes must be Libyan.
In the meantime, we freeze his assets and jam his communications and otherwise make life uncomfortable at minimal risk to ourselves. I don't know if the war will be short, but all the more reason to be cautious in how we proceed.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: As for the bullet in the head--the trick is getting close enough, and the plan actually succeeding. German officers who were in the room with Hitler couldn't kill him.
(I'll try to put up more constructive posts later, but I'm too busy right now to write everything I want to say on this topic)
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks talsmitde you got what I was saying :D
I see what you mean, but we have better stuff than just bullets, big long range artillary bullets pwhahaha... But if as you say having the Libyans doing the over-throwing of Ghaddafi would be better for them, then it's just a matter of time till someone gets enough balls to storm the gate.
I just hope our government doesn't supply Libya with weapons... it might go well at first, but if you've noticed a lot of the weapons that were being used against us in the M-E were from us back from the Iran-Iraq war... bombbbb
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I see what you mean, but we have better stuff than just bullets, big long range artillary bullets pwhahaha... But if as you say having the Libyans doing the over-throwing of Ghaddafi would be better for them, then it's just a matter of time till someone gets enough balls to storm the gate.
Something to consider: our military and politicians are presumably even better acquainted with what our various weapons and soldiers can do than you are, Rawrain. Perhaps there is a reason this very expedient action hasn't been taken, since they're almost certainly aware it's possible? Bear in mind that's not a decisive argument against doing it, but it's surely a good indicator that maybe you ought to reconsider, if lots of other people acquainted (probably even better acquainted) with the facts and possibilities have considered and rejected it.
Put another way, if assassination is as easy as you suggest, none of us really have any way of knowing it (if we're discussing covert assassination). Things would look very much the same. Overt assassination is likely (I actually think it's extremely likely, but for the sake of argument) a possibility, but it hasn't been tried, probably because of the question, "What happens next?"
This is, not to dredge up an old subject but because it's actually relevant to this talk of assassination, why history is important, why what happened hundreds of years ago is important, because it can help give us some idea of the answer to that question. And you don't have to know every single thing about what every actor in history was thinking at all times for it to be important, honestly that's such a strange objection it smacks of a tantrum-rebuttal more than anything else.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
??Are you talking about the consequences of assissinating Ghaddafi?? It all depends on who is supporting him and how willing his followers are to continue his orders even after he is dead, the use of history would only give infrences not facts.
Things I need to know to garantee a good assassination with minimum reprocusions.. Where does Ghaddafi get his funds from? (I do believe he's stealing from Libyan people, but is that all?) Are his followers hesistant? Which countries would disagree with this 'attempt'? Oh and of course, Who takes over if attempt is successful?
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, some things you need to know before you can effectively make a prediction. This is an incomplete list goin' from memory and tiredness, but:
What exactly are you predicting? Will you be able to know it when you see it? How will you be able to determine when your prediction has come true, and when will you be able to do so? Will you be able to, during the course of events, look at smaller events and see if they're leading up to the big prediction (or away from it)?
None of the questions you just asked, and that's not even a complete list - not even close to what would be necessary to have really considered whether or not to assassinate a chief of state - are you in a position to predict effectively. Some of those questions it's difficult to even tell what the actual conditions are to make a prediction on.
Basically, there are no facts. Of all the questions you asked, only one of them - the question of funding - can really be considered a question of fact, and there's a lot of room for murkiness there too (who controls the people who control the funds, etc.). This is one of the things the study of history is for, to gauge when and which inferences we should pay attention to, because inferences are all we're likely to get.
Frankly this seems so fundamental to observing politics, war, diplomacy that it really appears as though you're just changing the subject (an inaccurate accusation you made of me) and digging your heels in. For example, a better understanding of history might inform you that there have been many people and groups in the past which thought they knew the answers to the questions they needed to ask before assassinating someone. Sometimes things worked out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you lack the answers to my questions, no predictions for you!
The more information I get the better a prediction you get.
I am quite the thinker, it's why I say I am a philosopher, it's just what I do, I only stop to sleep, and even then it's tempting to go on.
I'm simply asking questions that can be answered, not that they are impossible, nor can they be found in history, and most of all cannot be found entirely on the internet. (entirely because videos /: )
There are many more questions but these are the answers to the big questions. Who supports? I got nothing on this one XD Willingness of followers? For the followers one, it's easy peacefull interrogation, this may need to be done to a few of em, but at least you won't have to torture any as long as you're looking for the answers I am asking. Interrogating questions- How the individual feels about Ghaddafi's commands. Why this individual taking part in Ghaddafi's commands. (A few more questions I have yet to think of /: ) What does his family think of Ghaddafi? (Believe it or not, it's a sob question really, put a guilt trip if you can before you release em, or keep em in a cell)
Additional questions are fine as long as they close with the whole family question, this must be done non-violently especially if they are to be released after questioning.
With this information gathered from several of Ghaddafi's followers it would be easier to predict how they would react to his assassination, and with the whole non-violent questioning, it would add good PR amoungst the followers and make it a little less likely they decide to start firing at their own people... if they are Libyan anyways ;o -------------------------------------------- "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes
It's not in this story, and Obama didn't go into further detail, but there's actually more to this story. There were two pilots who parachuted to safety. One of them was picked up by a helicopter, and the other hid in a barn. He wasn't sure if the barn was owned by rebels or loyalists, and the rebel who owned the farm wasn't sure if he was an American or a Ghadaffi pilot. When they eventually figured it out and the American came out, they helped him out with food and water, then drove him to where he could get back to his base.
After he was driven away, another plane came by to strafe the site of the downed F-15. In the strafing run, the farmer's son was severely injured by shrapnel. When the farmer was asked if he held any ill-will towards America because his son was injured, he basically replied that there were no hard feelings, and that accidents happen.
If true, then we're apparently engendering such good feelings over there that, in a part of the world where people don't usually need an excuse to hate us, they're overlooking being shot by us in order to like us. Of course, we all know how temporary appreciation for our help, such as it is, can be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
.__. Maybe the farmer was just really accepting of the way things are, showing hate towards someone in an accident would just shed more blood.
But the fact the people are thinking strongly of our help is a good sign towards this whole thing being done faster. -------------------- Is there another term for rebels who are also the good guys, every time I hear the word rebels I think them must be the bad guys, even star wars confused me... I mean the resistance works but it's just too big of a word to be used simply /:
Oh well, from this second forth I shall say resistence (until a better word comes along) instead of rebels, except when rebels is refering to the bad guys.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Is there another term for rebels who are also the good guys,"
Rebel doesn't mean 'good' or 'bad', it means rebel, someone who wars against the central authority.
quote:every time I hear the word rebels I think them must be the bad guys,
Which is ironic, given how the American rebellion is what gave birth to your nation -- but I guess your society has the Southern rebellion more recent in memory?
What about slave rebellions, though?
Rebel is an honorable and specific word, I suggest using it.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
haha southern rebellion is a joke, people just like to wear that flag thinking it makes their trucks look cool XD or maybe it's serious to them.... Given that rebellion was way before mine, and even my grandmothers time...
As far as my family goes I've always heard the words rebel and rule breaker as meaning roughly the exact same thing and rule breakers are bad, except when the rules are bad, then the people are good and -boom
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the USA wants to help other countries get their freedom and stop crimes against humanity, I'd like to know how we pick the places in which we are going to get involved.
There are places such as Sudan, Darfur, etc. that have worse things happening to the people than Libya, but we really haven't gotten involved there to the same extent. It almost seems like Libya was the big news story, so we decided to just go with that.
I'm not complaining against just President Obama either. If we are going to play the part of big brother to the world, I'd like to know how we choose our battles.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If we are going to play the part of big brother to the world, I'd like to know how we choose our battles.
I kind of feel this way too, but I'm also afraid of having too specific of a set of requirements, or a doctrine that is too rigidly based on definitions. The last thing I'd want is to sit here debating whether a massacre is technically a genocide, or to wait until a specific threshold is crossed (eg. as soon as three more people die, then we'll get involved), while people are being systematically slaughtered.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the biggest reason we're intervening in Libya is because of geography: it borders Tunisia and Egypt, which are still very fragile. Waves of refugees fleeing Libya would destabilize the temporary regimes in T & E, making the current (temporary) rulers more likely to chart a more authoritarian course.
Also, more cynically, Libya's on the EU's doorstep--they might not want the refugees either.
I agree with shadowland, that there shouldn't be a hard & fast rule.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, it's because the American government want's a foothold in every country they can get a toe in.
Just face it our government is possibly the most rigged in modern times, we get to vote for the president, but we have no say who get's to run for president, we get to vote who goes in congress, but not who gets to run to be in congress.
If you watch these politicians they are always jumping to the next position if they can't get voted in, and a majority of them are really bad people, democrat and republican are just words, and don't necissarily summerize the full list of that indivuals ideals, so why do we still use them 2 catagories even though they are innaccurate.
Why is it that in all presidential speeches the president states "god bless America", it's like they can't help themselves....
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just face it our government is possibly the most rigged in modern times, we get to vote for the president, but we have no say who get's to run for president, we get to vote who goes in congress, but not who gets to run to be in congress.
This is factually incorrect. We do have a say in who gets to run for President, as well as who gets to run for Congress. There's just not much interest in changing it-or do you have any evidence otherwise?
This is another of those times when it would probably be good to, you know, become better informed if only to be more persuasive about the topics you're discussing. This is basic-level stuff here, and your own dissatisfaction isn't actually a measure of reality.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I get on my meds, I will study up so I can best all those whom dwell this here forum, till then most of my facts are half assed /: 1. too lazy to research + dail up makes it hard 2. My town has no library so I have to go to the next town over to check out books, but I have to pay a tax to the library to do so, and I am broke. 3.I've heard just about everything at least once, I just have a hard time remembering XD ------ 4. I wanna pin some of the blame on my education as well, being a very low class citizen, and moving a lot, I never really got settled and I missed practically everything there was to learn in middle school, except of course Ender's Game, graduated now, I am still disapointed the schools taught nothing about things like how to do taxes, which still confuses me, because my whole family has someone else do theirs, and no one even my step-dad who would qualify as a genius if not for his forgetfullness brought on by years of smoking that green 'stuff', will explain taxes to me in an understandable way.
5. As far as lost people go, I'm the guy deep in a cave in the middle of the night, with no flashlight.
6. -Claps for self-
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: When I get on my meds
Nah, naaaah, you don't need meds. Who is telling you you need meds? You're a philosopher, meds will stifle that massive brain of yours. Don't listen to the doctors, it's their job to kill creativity and keep the status quo. Hide the pills under your tongue.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
XD The medicine helps me focus, the voices of them thousand thoughts stiffle at the pill, with such peace n' quite, I can chose between letting my imagination run (which is trippy because naturally I can daydream on command) or I can focus my thoughts on learning something new, or performing a task without them pesky mistakes I tend to make... I was considered the best in my geometry class, me and another student were constantly switching the top spot and I totally woulda trumped him if not for my mysterious 'forgetting to add the 0 at the end of #12' or 'Why didn'y I carry over that 2 even though It's clearly written above that 5 in problem #2'...... ------------------- I take the meds because they help me, not because the doctor says they do, I also take all medicine with the assumption that it won't work as to make myself immune to the placebo effect, aren't I just a clever one >;D Now I am just waiting for my insurance to cover it and walah....
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I served in Afghanistan last year, and after watching whats going on this is my response:
We are all watching the scene unfold in Libya like we have watched so much political turmoil around the world. The details and the players change but this story is not a new one. Small country leaders are known for their need to "project power" so that their small country does not feel so weak in a big pond. Why do we bother being shocked to find out that a man who has been left as god of a small nation has taken certain liberties? These dictators are not told NO very often so when the subject of "hey should we kill these people that don't like you?" comes up- it's pretty easy for them to justify it to themselves as "doing what must be done to lead their poor little country."
The people tend to accept some of these liberties to some extent- especially if the living conditions haven't recently worsened. The people involved around these leaders, and sometimes the populous as well, have a tendency to forgive their leaders in the hope that it will strengthen their small nation. Violence leading to more violence eventually causes a boil over where the dictator is unwilling to give up power. He see's himself as the leader that has been making sacrifices for the people, and thus the true leader of said nation.
If you step back and look at the situation like this it's quickly apparent that EVERYONE involved wants the best for their small nation. Under equipped civilians are running into an armed military each believing that they are strengthening their world by doing so, when they are choosing the WORST option possible. It's like a distance runner amputating their leg so that they can finish the marathon with no blisters... AND WE FEED INTO IT! We consider these things like they are legitimate solutions because it's what happened LAST time this was on CNN so why would they do it any different THIS time it's on CNN. There is no rational reason to arm the 'freedom fighters.' Giving them guns only signs their death warrant, and it tells the world that we approve the killing that will be carried out in the name of the fallen for generations to come.
While I offer no direct solution (beyond Gaddafi realizing the point I'm trying to make and giving up all nice and quiet like). I will not allow myself to consider solutions that lead to more deaths. I always remember one Gandhi quote that sticks with me- "For this cause I would be willing to die, but there is no cause for which I am willing to kill."
Our own countries history may have been born of blood, but our greatest rebellions have come at the hands of peaceful men. Civil Rights. Women's Rights. Human Rights. We as Americans have created our own version of rebellion, and built peace into our government system- presidents are inevitably fired after eight years, regardless of their performance. No violence, no questioning, no standoff in the desert- they just leave peacefully. I remain happy that I live here.
posted
Owen you don't sound like a Marine....but you claim you are, so do you have your stripes yet?
Something seems off in your character, I spent a little more than 4 years living in Camp Lejeune, with my Step-Dad who's now retired at the rank of Sergeant, and you're writing doesn't have the Marine feel to it, not one ounce of it.... /: ------ Not the slickest move I've seen though, what you say is relivent, but you act as though you typed it here first then blogged it, but really you blogged it -googled around- and found someplace to post what you've already blogged. ----- Also going entirely what you said, you've left not much wiggle room to have forum fun discussions /: ------ Oh yes, Marines typically don't smile in pictures (some expections of course, like I just got out of a shitty foriegn country, smile is exceptable)... I actually have a funny story related to this whole smilling thing 1 guy in my step-dad's graduation platoons photograph, is smilling, you wouldn't think much of it, but you have over 100 guys all standing there with stern faces on and you have this goober smiling XD
I disagree with a lot of what you just said, but I think your last paragraph really emphasizes where we diverge:
quote:Our own countries history may have been born of blood, but our greatest rebellions have come at the hands of peaceful men. Civil Rights. Women's Rights. Human Rights. We as Americans have created our own version of rebellion, and built peace into our government system- presidents are inevitably fired after eight years, regardless of their performance. No violence, no questioning, no standoff in the desert- they just leave peacefully. I remain happy that I live here.
That's lovely, but peaceful protest relies, to a great degree, on the underlying moral compunctions of the force you're opposing. Civil disobedience worked in America and other places because the reactions from the government caused a serious backlash that got the people to chance their minds, and forced progress. That doesn't work so well when the force you're opposing has no problems with just mowing you down in the streets. American style protest doesn't work so well against autocracies with no moral restrictions.
Your solution seems to be a sort of "grin and bear it" way of looking at things, and I can't say I support that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn I don't think Owen is gonna come back, he was just searching for places to put his 'story'(?), and I suppose found this forum and coppied it here...
Tom,if you've been around some Marines enough they aren't the type that casts an image of doing things the peaceful way, they're trained killers, and this man Owen sounds like he frollics in flowers >__>
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did he ever say he was a marine? He said he served in Afghanistan.
In any case, you're wrong about Marines. Like most groups of people, they're more diverse than one would think.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
^__^ My Buddy Chris P is a big nerd, whose height is 5'10" as skinny as a branch, and oh ya he's a Marine XD Destineer he claims to be a Marine Sergeant on his blog, as well as serving 6 years, and he shows absolutely no mannerisms of ever being a Marine >__> and in fact, I would go as far to say his blog is borderline feminine..
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rawrain: You're being extremely rude. I wouldn't like it much if somebody told me how I ought to act when I self identify as something. I'm certain there is a culture amongst the Marines, but that doesn't mean one has to buy into it to serve. As far as I understand it, there is not writing style requirement or blog standard for a Marine.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A guy that pops up because the discussions in his court to make 1 post a copy and paste one at that, is what I find rude..
once a Marine always a Marine, and this man lacks every single aspect of what a Marine is besides the haircut, which anyone can have, I believe he's an imposter! I am gonna link my step-dad to the blog and get his opinion /: and he's always right...(well hasn't been wrong yet, one day though..one day!)
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
" Posted by Removed from Reality at 1:34 AM " (most likely Western time) " posted March 31, 2011 04:29 AM " (central time)
My time is set for central and I assume his blog is set as Western, which means he posted it either 1 or 2 hours later on here, I am unsure which one ._.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Step dad wins! Flawless victory! "Man I don't see how u can gatHer his "mannerisms" just from the 3 very boring parAgrApHs on that blog address u sent me to, aside from the fact that he seems to just be ranting incoherently and seems like he's much younger than the 26 yrs old that he stAted. However, I DID conduct a personnel search on a website that I, as a Marine, still have access to. See, the site tells the names,rank, and other pertinent info of EVRY1 who is in ANY branch of service or who ever WAS in any branch, even the reserves, and that guys name or info don't show up in any of the databases so I think he's full of shit tryn to impersonate...." ( I accidentally linked him to just the guys libyan topic and not the main section of his blog) He answered my email with a text message XD
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought about that, but it seems very unlikely. If it wasn't for my years of online gaming I would use my real name in place of rawrain .__. , but it's the name I chose in the beggining so I stuck with it.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, why on Earth would you care enough about this random dude to go to that amount of trouble, Rawrain?
Listen: that is pretty strange. That is some odd behavior, particularly since you said yourself you don't even think he's coming back. I don't know what's going on with you, but your style lately has been at best consistently baffling and frequently very off-putting and rude. To say nothing of, again, just peculiar.
Perhaps you ought to consider talking to someone face-to-face, or voice-to-voice, about whatever is actually bothering you rather than patrolling an Internet forum. That is not to say you're not allowed to post here-I'm obviously not the person who makes that decision, and even if I was, I don't think anything you've done approaches that threshold anyway. But steppin' the forum cop on Owen or whoever he is, going to your step-father (and really, why should we believe you any more than you say we should believe him?), and so on and so forth...just strange.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like policing XD, but hey, if that guy is using his real name, he's impersinating a Marine. And I do believe it's illegal.
Sometimes I pay attention too little, sometimes too much.
My step-dad has better resources than I do, of course having access to the military websites, kinda makes looking up that guys name easy XD ------------------------------------------------ Rakeesh I don't like liers /: I really don't and when something seems off about a particular person I get very meticulous.. ------------------------------------------------ As for my posts being offensive, ya it depends on what topics I am talking about, religion, politics, and social behavior are topics I am going to offend people on, so just brace yourself if I make a comment XD ------------------------------------------------ Also I do have a psychologist, but he doesn't want to speek with me until after I've tried the medicine he prescribe, which due to insurance and pharmacy issues is going to be a coupla' more days >.<
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rawrain: I think you're completely out of line. You very quickly - and incorrectly - judged someone you didn't know. What you did wasn't even stereotyping - your comments were simply unfounded and flippant. At least what Owen says makes sense and shows a command of the english language. I still haven't seen that in any of your 200 plus comments.
To say someone is "full of shit tryn to impersonate...." is a serious attack on one's character. I don't think such disrespectful language has any place on this forum, true or false. The accusation of imposter is far from being a warm greeting towards someone new to the community and you would do well to check your tone and comments before you further detract from this discussion and worsen your faltering credibility.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I thought about that, but it seems very unlikely. If it wasn't for my years of online gaming I would use my real name in place of rawrain .__. , but it's the name I chose in the beggining so I stuck with it.
Guess what- Misha McBride isn't my real name. The name I'm on Facebook under isn't my real name either. My email? Not my real name. In fact, not a single one of my usernames anywhere on the internet is my real name. Why? Because there are creepy guys on the internet (like you!) who might start e-stalking me and trying to dig up my personal information. You might post my details online to strangers whom I do not want having that information. You might even try to get me into IRL trouble with my family or boss (or in this guy's case superior officer) because you got butthurt about something I said.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capaxinfiniti that was my step dad that said the badly written statement, and as a marine to an impersonating marine FoS is the least terrible thing he could say.. >__> --------------------------------- Yes Destineer a psychiatrist.... I mix things up m'kay /: ----------------------------------------- I've done justified my actions and I am no stalker. In an addition I partually agree with what Owen said. My pursuit of his possible falsehood was entirely brought on but what I know and believe to be absolute truths, and only the most clever and suspicious of people can negate that.
posted
Did your step-dad teach you how to write? Because I couldn't differentiate his writing from your's.
I don't consider consulting with your step-dad and some "site" - conveniently inaccessible to the general public - due diligence when trying to ascertain the veracity of someone's claim to be a marine. It seems you have no faith in the essential decency of people in general, and, in this case, your skepticism is unwarranted.
You don't have to stalk anyone but your research seems less than thorough and your "sources" will remain suspect until you give us information adequate for verification. In the end, your hasty judgment has done you a disservice, as it make me more suspicious of your previous claims.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want access to certain government websites you're gonna have to join the military .__. ... I am sure you know someone in the military, which means they get access, so you can ask them to search for Owen.
capaxinfiniti I acknowledge everyday how crippled my spelling abilities are, thanks for the reminder. And that's sort of funny, you do know I quoted what he said...right? --------- Here's how it is, Owen is using his real name, he is not a Marine. This is a fact. Owen is using pseudonym, and he could be a Marine.
My decision to accuse is based on intuition, I've been around Marines, they are dogs... and I've read what Owen has to say, and he's a cat. cat =/= dog
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
it depends on what topics I am talking about, religion, politics, and social behavior are topics I am going to offend people on, so just brace yourself if I make a comment XD
