gulfwar_veteran

No, reading a jumbled mess of text without proper quotes is what *IS* hard to read. Separating the issues point by point and responding accordingly not only makes it easier to read but easier to respond to. IMHO, of course.

GWV
formerly Neo

PS. Seriously...no offense, but I am completely amazed that two moderators are all of a sudden making this kind of argument, er...complaint.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by gulfwar_veteran
No, reading a jumbled mess of text without proper quotes is what *IS* hard to read. Separating the issues point by point and responding accordingly not only makes it easier to read but easier to respond to. IMHO, of course.

However, there's a middle ground. Quote a thought, reply to it, then quote the next relevant issue. What I believe started this argument was quoting a single sentance often. It's hard to follow the context that way.

PS. Seriously...no offense, but I am completely amazed that two moderators are all of a sudden making this kind of argument, er...complaint.

I was trying to explain. While I find it hard to read also I figure that it's not a moderator issue--if you make your words hard to read it just means fewer people will read them.

Gurdur

Loren,
let's get down to brass tacks.
99percent jumped into a thread in which he was simply not involved in the discussion, only to make a rant against me - as though he was speaking as a moderator.

No person involved in this d�scussion has as yet backed up 99percent's attack. No person involved in this discussion has as yet complained about my style of formatting - and it would seem that the people to whom my posts were addressed read my posts, so we can also forget "fewer people will read them".

99percent refused to clarify whether he was speaking as moderator as a private poster.

In combination with other threads, his hijack appears to be a personal attack upon me.
This is disgraceful.

"Middle ground" is simply not an issue - a moderator refusing to specify whether his comments are private opinion or moderation is an issue, a moderator hijacking a discussion with a rant is an issue.

Gurdur

I would have thought the point had been well and truly made when I went over it with LiquidRage.

An argument from authority is not false when
1) it's a pragmatic argument, based on reckonings
2) that authority is competent and relevant

An argument from experience is not at all false when that experience is relevant and cogent.

An argument that an opinion has equal merit despite being unqualified and inexperienced is false.

Gurdur

This is a huge question, and I'm not sure I can make a good answer, but I'll try, in a rambling way.

The army is subject to civilian control, and always should be, at the top - but even of higher authority than that is the question of ethics, and of pragmatics.

A few illustrations:

1) Of interest during the latest firefighters' strike in the UK was the unprompted insistance from the army itself that it did not want to be put into the role of strike-breaking

2) A while ago, police were complaining (in the UK and Australia) that they were also been seen as social therapists and magical social fixits - a role for which neither they nor anyone else was capable

3) Turkey has been held together, reasonably secular and more-or-less democratic by its army jumping in against elected politicians every now and then.

4) the armies in such places as Chile, Argentina, Columbia and the Congo are of far greater danger to their own civilians- to their own people - than they are a danger to enemies of the state and external enemies.

What I'm trying to say here is that there is no single overall programmatic way to decide an army and control over it - much is circumstance and ethics applied pragmatically.

Hugo Holbling

I wonder if there's anyone here who disagrees with this? I know of quite a few...

You've obviously never heard of Objectivism, then...

Gurdur

heh.

Gurdur

To be more critical of myself, I was being a bit too simplistic myself.
Apart from expressing the manifold problems of this area, I was also trying to get to what I see as being a huge problem these days; that often voting populations are simply spoilt brats in Western countries; they refuse to take responsibility themselves, and demand the government, the politicians (whom they see as a seperate caste), the army and police all perform magical tasks without the cooperation of the voters.

When I see in the extremely recent election in Kenya how very poor people, exposed for decades to mismanagement, gross corruption and bullying of the worst kind, get to the voting booths and stay overnight to ensure reasonably fair counting, I feel like barfing over Westerners who whine about politicians in their own countries, or who affect a fashionable disdain for politics and community service.

gulfwar veteran made a good argument somewhat related; to extend it a bit further, if people aren't willing to serve their country, they are treating their government and democracy as a consumer item, one over which they express fashionable snobbery and contempt. It's a very destructive attitude.

livius drusus

I've been lurking on this thread since the beginning but others have articulated my position far better than I could and since my one military qualification is that I look pretty damn good in my dad's old dress jacket, I thought it best to let the soldiers make the case.

Having said that, I read an interesting article yesterday on the DLI's discharge of 9 gay arabic students which speaks directly to the unwieldiness of "don't ask, don't tell" and the question of unit cohesiveness. Another excellent point mentioned in the article which I had never considered is that people might out themselves to get out of serving so they can sell their highly specialized skills on the private market. I'm interested to hear y'all's reactions to the article.

As for the bizarre non-issue of reply formatting, I have to say I very much appreciate the breakdown of argument and response. I find it easy to follow and I think it helps ensure specificity. I also think that it is even more important now that the Moderator title shows in every forum for mods to state clearly whether they are on active duty or just shooting the shit. Pardon the continuing digression, but 99Percent's interjection came across as inexplicably surly to me and I felt the need to weigh in.

Now carry on, boys.

gulfwar_veteran

Another interesting point made by the aforementioned/linked article:

"Gamble snorts at this. He thinks they were using the policy to get a world-class education and then skip out on their duty to the armed forces, where the pay is lower and the work more dangerous than in the private sector. "When they're handing you a year and a half of unbelievable training, people say at the end of this training, 'Wow, I have this fantastic education and fantastic ability to speak the language and oh, by the way, I'm gay now,'" says Gamble. "You'll find people often come out at the end of training � conveniently."

Now there's something to think (and argue/debate) about!

GWV