rec.autos.simulators

by **John Walla** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>See, now this kills me----you claim as well as others that Abbot had the
>right to say anything he want, because of free speech, yet when someone
>replies with something that offends you, what happens? People start
>claiming he has no right to respond that way......so let me get this
>straight, as long as people don't offend you with what they say, then
>they have the right to say it, but if you don't agree with it, "shit
>stain" being the example, then they don't have the right to say it.
>Where does the freedom lie in that thinking?

Er, pot, kettle, black? You are doing exactly the same with your
comments above.

"Freedom of speech" does not carry any implication of freedom from the
consequences of what you say. "Shitstain" is not even slightly
justified.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 15:22:03 -0400, "Gault"

>Nice dodge with a snotty rejoinder to boot, but that doesn't cut it. I had
>read the entire thread, and you've done little to back up why your
>noninvolvement and seeming ignorance of the conflict trump Mr. Simmon's
>experience and judgement.

I've seen little evidence of experience and judgement and my whole
involvement in this thread has been based on the judgement of someone
else as a "shitstain". I've yet to meet someone who meets or deserves
that description, so perhaps my perception of the aforementioned
judgement isn't as high as yours?

I never admitted any such thing - what _I_ said was that I have never
been asked to. I'm sure there were plenty of people of all
nationalities in Vietnam, but few of them were at war. ANZACs are not
my countrymen. Ali refers to the boxer.

If you want to quote statistics just do so, there's no need to try and
justify it by inventing an interest on my behalf.

There are _many_ response I could make to the statistics you quoted,
but this is hardly the place - nor is it at all related to the point.
The fact that someone is or is not a vet is incidental, the fact that
he uses that to justify calling someone a shitstain is.

Thank you - _EXACTLY_ my point. _I_ object to someone calling someone
else a shitstain then trying to jusify it. As far as I can see you
object to me doing so - that's fine too, but it doesn't change my
opinion.

In correspondence of any sort I respond in accordance with that which
has preceded me.

Not so - my first and only comment was on the language. I have no
problem with vets in any way whatsoever, nor have I participated at
all in the strange discussion growing up regarding welfare scroungers
and the like. Vietnam had a truckload of problems, but from here it
seems the vast majority of these were political and the vets ended up
the losers all around, being forced to give up some of the best years
of their life, and suffering some backlash on their return. Whether or
not I (or anyone else) agrees with the war has no bearing on vets -
they were simply people doing a difficult job to the best of their
ability. Problems with the war are best directed to the hand that
moved the soldiers around, but that seems to be often overlooked.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>It's clear you have not read the thread and have gone off half***ed.

That is only clear within your mind.

I doubt I would have failed anything you came up with.

Who's Jane? To call Ali a "draft dodger" does say a lot - it says a
lot about you and your perceptions.

It's another opinion. I don't think it was at all - Ali's stand was
about the fact that as a black (he wasn't considered a full citizen of
the country (in his opinion) but was expected to die like one. I think
I would have objected to that too.

How do I know? I postulate. I estimate. I consider and I speculate.
You can't "know", but I can certainly think about how something like
that would affect me. And whatever answer I come up with about what I
would do is infinitely more accurate than what you tell me about what
I would do. How can you try to tell me I'm wrong in my estimation of
how I would feel and what I would do? Crazy.

Cheers!
John

by **pqt2** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> That is only clear within your mind.

And everyone else that read the thread.

But you did!

Another classic example of you failing. I'd didn't call Ali a draft dodger!

Yes and I know a lot of Blacks that I served with then and since that didn't and don't
support his position. Ali's stand had very little to do with religion and being Black,
those were convenient issues, he didn't even want to serve in the military in any capacity
because it would interfere with his boxing career.

Very easy to say by someone who grew up in another generation. I'd didn't say you were
wrong (you failed again) I said you might have had a different attitude -and you just might
have- but now you have that wonderful hindsight that makes us all so damn knowing. Your
kids will have different attitudes about things than you just because of the age difference
and current events.

We are never going to agree on something that happened so long ago--that effected one of
us directly and the other not at all--that involved my country and countrymen and not
yours--especially since I was a professional soldier for 26 years and you have never even
served your country for even one day. Now this is "Nuts".

Just what the hell does all this have to do with sim racing anyway--Beats the Shit Out of
Me. Paul

by **Scot** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> >See, now this kills me----you claim as well as others that Abbot had the
> >right to say anything he want, because of free speech, yet when someone
> >replies with something that offends you, what happens? People start
> >claiming he has no right to respond that way......so let me get this
> >straight, as long as people don't offend you with what they say, then
> >they have the right to say it, but if you don't agree with it, "shit
> >stain" being the example, then they don't have the right to say it.
> >Where does the freedom lie in that thinking?

> Er, pot, kettle, black? You are doing exactly the same with your
> comments above.

> "Freedom of speech" does not carry any implication of freedom from the
> consequences of what you say. "Shitstain" is not even slightly
> justified.

> Cheers!
> John

I don't see where I(being the pot I assume) called any kettle black. I
was pointing out the fact that you didn't like that someone called
another person a shit stain for what you consider no reason. So YOU said
they had no right to do so. All I said was if one person has a "right"
to label vets as nuts, then vets have a "right" to label that person as
a shit stain. Simple and fair for everyone. Don't insult people, then
get offended when it comes right back to you. I never once indicated
someone didn't have a right to their opinion. I just disagree with
yours, that's all. Not trying to claim you don't have a "right" to it.

by **Scot** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> >> Pardon me, but weren't those vet's fighting for freedom of speech?

> >NO!---they were not fighting for freedom of speech----that was never in
> >jeopardy or an issue of vietnam that we went to war over. When was the
> >last time you heard "vietnam--the war for free speech". The US in fact
> >was never in direct jeopardy, and I personally objected to it, but
> >that's another story. It was a HUGE political war and nothing more, that
> >cost many good men their lives, and countless others there souls. That
> >war, NOT the men who fought in it, should be forgotten as quickly as
> >possible in my opinion. But first we must learn from the terrible
> >mistake that was made there. It left a bad taste in the mouth of the
> >entire world.

> The war was stupid, IMO. The guys FIGHTING it were not. They risked their
> lives for our country, and for that I honor them. Yes, I *know* our country
> wasn't in danger, but you understand what I mean...

> Eldred

I hope you aren't under the impression I think those fighting the war
were stupid. I never implied that, in fact look at the line that reads
"That war, NOT the men who fought in it, should be forgotten as quickly
as possible in my opinion." Perhaps I just misinterpreted your post, or
you did mine.

by **John Walla** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>I don't see where I(being the pot I assume) called any kettle black. I
>was pointing out the fact that you didn't like that someone called
>another person a shit stain for what you consider no reason. So YOU said
>they had no right to do so. All I said was if one person has a "right"
>to label vets as nuts, then vets have a "right" to label that person as
>a shit stain. Simple and fair for everyone. Don't insult people, then
>get offended when it comes right back to you. I never once indicated
>someone didn't have a right to their opinion. I just disagree with
>yours, that's all. Not trying to claim you don't have a "right" to it.

Which is precisely what you objected to in my post. I took objection
to someone being called a shitstain - no big deal, just a flippant
response. I then received your diatribe telling me how wrong I was to
do that.

Pot, kettle, black.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>And everyone else that read the thread.

A representative sample of....ONE. Just what I expected.

In your befuddled mind, perhaps.

You did. You also didn't tell me where you got "Jane" from.

Your opinion - not one shared by anyone I've ever heard comment on the
subject but I'll respect your right to think it.

How do you know it's very easy to say if you're not from my
generation? You're postulating, estimating - all the other things
mankind is equipped to do. What else do you expect someone to do?

As do you. I might have a different attitude, but given the
information at my disposal now my impression is as I stated. I'm not
wrong, I'm not right - it's an opinion.

Of course, and I hope I will remain open-minded enough not to follow
your example of presuming them wrong because they have the advantage
of hindsight, lack experience or whatever.

Serving your country comes in many forms, and I've served my country
every day for the last 15 years. Not every soldier who went to Vietnam
served the U.S. to the same degree, indeed some of them committed
horrific crimes and were a disgrace to their country and their
uniform. Serving your country for 26 years is far from a guarantee of
a reasoned and valid opinion.

Cheers!
John

by **Mark Stah** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

jane fonda, i'm sure.

by **Scot** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> >I don't see where I(being the pot I assume) called any kettle black. I
> >was pointing out the fact that you didn't like that someone called
> >another person a shit stain for what you consider no reason. So YOU said
> >they had no right to do so. All I said was if one person has a "right"
> >to label vets as nuts, then vets have a "right" to label that person as
> >a shit stain. Simple and fair for everyone. Don't insult people, then
> >get offended when it comes right back to you. I never once indicated
> >someone didn't have a right to their opinion. I just disagree with
> >yours, that's all. Not trying to claim you don't have a "right" to it.

> Which is precisely what you objected to in my post. I took objection
> to someone being called a shitstain - no big deal, just a flippant
> response. I then received your diatribe telling me how wrong I was to
> do that.

> Pot, kettle, black.

> Cheers!
> John

See, this is where communication is lacking in terms of text only NGs,
and not being able to talk "face-to-face" in order to get full meaning
of ones conversation. I wasn't telling you that you were wrong for
having your opinions John, in fact I welcome them--celebrate
diversity--. What I objected to was that you claimed he had "no right"
to his. Your exact phrase was---

"No-one has any right to call anyone a shitstain for expressing an
opinion."

My point is they have EVERY right to call them a shit stain, or whatever
they decide to call them. Whether or not you or I agree with his choice
of words is irrelavent, he still has a right to them. I never told you
that you didn't have a right to the comment that you made. I merely
stated that I thought it was wrong, not with the fact that you objected
that he called him a "shit stain" but with the aspect of "no-one has any
right" The m***issue is not the subject here. Personally I don't like
the guys choice of words either, but I do believe he can say them all he
wants. And he shouldn't be told he doesn't "have the right to them".
Referring to his choice of words, not his opinions.

And besides, that's between him, and the so called "shit stain" to
settle. Not for us to get invloved in.

by **pqt2** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

John Wallace wrote

If you go back and read the origional post you would know what was really said.

Your childish name calling doesn't change the fact that you did.

Read the post again, it ended in "and draft dodgers". Jane Fonda

So my experiences are invalid and all the people I have come in contact with are wrong and you
know hords of people that say we are wrong. Now that's just swell..

It is just logical that different times and experiences shape different attitudes.

Thats the point, you would not have had the information you have now.

You are making up things now--no where did I ever mention or imply that you "WERE Wrong" I
simply stated that time and experiences change attitudes.

Yep and there were many civilians who commit horrific crimes and are a disgrace. Just why are
you grasping for straws bringing up the Mi Lia incident. What does that have to do with
anything?

If you are trying to insult me you will have to get up a hell of a lot earlier in the morning.
It didn't work, but I find your response insulting. I should have known it would come to this
after your description of my " befuddled mind".

Up until now I had some respect for your opinions posted on this news group but now I have
"0". I know you don't care so don't bother to respond.. You win, live in your self
wonderfulness and I will continue to be "befuddled" as you described me and my mind. Sort of
like calling someone shit stain(pot calling the kettle black,buckoo. Paul.

by **Daxe Rexfor** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

How would you feel if it DID work? Double-secret insulted?

~daxe

by **John Walla** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>"No-one has any right to call anyone a shitstain for expressing an
>opinion."

>My point is they have EVERY right to call them a shit stain, or whatever
>they decide to call them.

Of course they have a right to call them a shitstain, but what I said
was they have no right to call them that for expressing their opinion
- just as it is their right, so they should recognise the right of the
other.

There we disagree, if you post something in a public newsgroup... :-)

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>So my experiences are invalid and all the people I have come in contact with are wrong and you
>know hords of people that say we are wrong. Now that's just swell..

In my opinion and experience, yes. You believe the reverse to be true.

And that yours are somehow more valid and meaningful than mine, this
said without any knowledge of me whatsoever. No, that's not logical at
all.

But as to how that information would shape and change my attitude we
have no idea - you can't say how any given experience would change
anyone but yourself. Clearly not everyone left Vietnam with the same
feelings so what we do know is that it affects different people in
different ways, as does any experience. To say that my perception of
how it would change me is wrong is simply nonsense. My perception may
not be right but it is equally not wrong.

The implication being that my estimation of how a given experience
would have affected me was flawed.

I have never HEARD of the Mi Lia incident, and I hardly think that it,
whatever it is, was the only atrocity ever committed in Vietnam (if
indeed it was an atrocity). The point is not whether soldiers or
civilians commit crimes, the point is that "serving your country" is
not in itself a laudable or honourable thing.

Oh grow up. The above is a statement of fact, not an insult in any way
shape or form. If you choose to interpret it as such then I suggest
that is your problem.

I don't post my opinions here to gain the respect of others, I post
them because they are what I believe in and in the spirit of
discussion and exchange of ideas. The loss of whatever regard you held
my opinions in is not an issue, although of course I'm sorry you
choose to react like that.

Cheers!
John

by **Eldre** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>Crohn's disease is a chronic, progressive disease affecting any portion of
>the digestive tract,

Ugh. Sorry I *asked*...
I wouldn't wish that on my worst ENEMY...

Eldred

__

Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea...
remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

rec.autos.simulators

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards

Cowards