Sixty-Eight Years Ago

[Joe Guy]

With all due respect, Jim, I don't believe that BSG attacked you and I believe that you certainly overreacted to her. Her reference to anyone not blinded by hatred for rubato is not directed at you, it is directed at anyone who is blinded by hatred for rubato. It's not BSG's fault that you are one of them.

She was using that phrase in order to make a point. The point that only a person who intensely dislikes rubato would not see the post as something positive.

Even Gob indicated that rubato wrote a good post.

That's my opinion also.

[Lord Jim]

]With all due respect, Jim, I don't believe that BSG attacked you and I believe that you certainly overreacted to her. Her reference to anyone not blinded by hatred for rubato is not directed at you, it is directed at anyone who is blinded by hatred for rubato. It's not BSG's fault that you are one of them.

I'm surprised at you Joe; you're usually not one to make rationalizations for obvious insults like that.

[Joe Guy]

But I don't see an obvious insult. I believe that if BSG really wanted to insult you, she wouldn't be so indirect. I know you see it quite differently and I'll just agree to disagree with you since all we could add to this discussion at this point is "Did!" & "Did Not!".

[Lord Jim]

I believe that if BSG really wanted to insult you, she wouldn't be so indirect.

Yeah, I guess that's because when people want to issue an insult, they never do it in an indirect way....

To be honest Joe when I first read this:

Her reference to anyone not blinded by hatred for rubato is not directed at you, it is directed at anyone who is blinded by hatred for rubato. It's not BSG's fault that you are one of them.

I thought perhaps you were being sarcastic...

It' certainly reads like sarcasm to me...

BTW, I am not "blinded by hate" for rubato....

On numerous occasions, I have posted when I agreed with him about something, (a courtesy btw, which that boorish oaf has never extended to me....)

But I have seen his shit often enough to smell it when he's disgorged another pile....

And anyone else who has read his posts for any length of time should be able to do so as well.

His clear and obvious intent in posting in the garbage I quoted was to interject a snide partisan political swipe into what should have been a thread that had nothing to do with partisan politics....

Who do you suppose he thinks, given his ignorant cartoonish view of contemporary politics, believes "the government is the source of all evil" and are "defeatists who say that everything we do as a country is wrong and stupid. "?

People in general? The Green Party? Buddhists? Softball players?

Come on.....

Given this guy's record, there is one and only thing he could have meant, and one and only purpose he could have had in mind.

And it was totally inappropriate for this thread, and I called him on it, and rightly so.

It's not "blind hatred"; it's the bleeding obvious.

[Joe Guy]

Did not.

[Lord Jim]

I guess instead of saying this:

What is it about you that you believe makes you so "special" that you should be able to jump into something that was in no way directed at you, issue personal insults, and then expect none in return?

One set of rules for how BSG is supposed to be able to treat others, and another set for how BSG feels she should be treated....

I should have said:

What is it about lawyers who live in Montana that makes them believe they are so "special" that they should be able to jump into something that was in no way directed at them, issue personal insults, and then expect none in return?

One set of rules for how lawyers who live in Montana are supposed to be able to treat others, and another set for how lawyers who live in Montana feel they should be treated....

Then BSG wouldn't be able to claim my comments were directed at her because my comments were directed at lawyers that live in Montana, and it's not my fault that BSG happens to be one of them...

[BoSoxGal]

Thanks, Joe Guy, for giving me the benefit of doubt & viewing my post rationally.

Fucking sad what is happening to this place. Is it any wonder I'm spending most time elsewhere?

I'm sorry I posted and dared disagree with the LJ worldview. Go on thinking and saying what a cunt I am, LJ; I have no respect left for you that you can damage, so I really don't care. Try to get the ranting over in fewer than a half dozen posts responsive to this one, though, out of respect for those who still read you and would rather not see you acting churlish & petulant.

[Lord Jim]

Go on thinking and saying what a cunt I am, LJ

Hello? Overreaction and Misrepresentation Police? You're needed in the Sixty-Eight Years Ago thread....

I guess maybe if you've somehow managed to see me having said that, that would explain why you don't see what rube was saying...

There apparently isn't any relationship between the words that actually appear on the screen and the words that you think you see....(or maybe you're just not bothering to read what's actually been said before you respond, since you've admitted to doing that as well.)

out of respect for those who still read you

Gee, I was under the impression that you were going to stop reading my posts after the last time you jumped in out of the blue insulting me and starting a fight; in fact as I recall, after you said you were going to do that, I asked you to please do so....

Apparently that didn't happen, because you've done it again.

[Lord Jim]

I wasn't planning to post any more about this, but since BSG has seen fit to resurrect this discussion, I would ask those folks who think that this comment:

Because they believed in our government, they didn't disparage it and call it the source of all evil, they weren't defeatists who say that everything we do as a country is wrong and stupid.

was a wonderful and appropriate comment to make in a thread about the commemoration of D-Day, to please offer their explanation as to who they think he was talking about and why they think he made it.

I've offered mine: (I don't claim any deep insight for my explanation, since it's the most obvious one, based on his long record ):

That he was referencing his ignorant cartoonish view of Republicans; and that he was trying to use this thread, which was posted for the purpose commemorating an historical event that all Americans hold in great regard regardless of party or ideology, as a vehicle to take a gratuitous partisan swipe at the objects of his personal partisan hatred, and make a purely partisan point.

Some folks have posted that they don't see what he said that, way, but nobody has posted what they believe he meant by those words, if that wasn't his intention....

I would really be delighted to hear from anyone who thinks my interpretation of those words of his are wrong, not just that you think they're wrong, or some general expression of approval of his post, but specifically what you think he meant with those words....

Now, please let me be clear....

My question isn't "what could those words mean if anybody said them" or "what other theoretical meaning could one possibly imagine for those words", or "what could those words mean if you'd never read anything else rube had written..."

My question is, given your experience in having read rube's posts over the years, what other possible meaning and intent do you think he could possibly have had in mind when he posted them?

To be honest I'm really looking forward to seeing some answers on this, because quite frankly, given my knowledge of rube and his record here, I can't think of another single explanation than the one I've put forward.

[Joe Guy]

I interpreted rubato's post as a statement that the soldiers who stormed Normandy were focused on the ultimate goal of winning the war and they were not influenced by the type of political hype and outright lying that goes on today that could influence many soldiers and cause them to pause and doubt whether or not they were doing the right thing.

It was a time when our soldiers had no doubt as to whether we were fighting on the right side in the war.

Nowadays each war that we involve ourselves in is questionable.

For example; Was the Iraqi war about access to oil or was it a true concern for democracy in a country we attacked?

[Gob]

I have to disagree Joe, rubato states;

It's difficult to imagine today. Most of the conscripts were unsophisticated kids, 18-24 years old, only 1/2 had graduated from High School, and few had ever traveled more than 10 miles from where they were born. And they gave their lives for us. Because they believed in our government, they didn't disparage it and call it the source of all evil, they weren't defeatists who say that everything we do as a country is wrong and stupid. Because they believed in us, that we would make their sacrifice worthwhile, that we would make a fairer world, a world with hope for all who labor honestly that they, or their children, can achieve.

He was talking directky about about the soldiers’ and their beliefs, no one else; not any "type of political hype and outright lying". I cannot believe our fighting forces today feel that way about their respective government, and; "call it the source of all evil" or are "defeatists who say that everything we do as a country is wrong and stupid," do you?

[Joe Guy]

I have to disagree Joe, rubato states;...... etc."

So you didn't mean this then -

Well said Rubato.

I thought when I read the above - that you agreed with me that rubato's post was a good one.

Oh well,

Opinions do change....

It's time to move on to another subject.

This discussion is going nowhere.

[Gob]

No, I did think rubato's post was good, mainly due to his first and last sentences, I do not regret applauding it. Anyone who takes time to visit war graves should be recognised for doing a good thing.

I hadn't looked at that central part with US eyes though. Now, having looked at the rationales offered, I agree with Jim’s interpretation of the central part. Hey, that's what's good about this place, one can learn.

But I agree this storm in a tea cup is going nowhere, I hope you and Jim are man enough to shake and agree to disagree. That's what sorts the wheat from the chaff here.

[Joe Guy]

But I agree this storm in a tea cup is going nowhere, I hope you and Jim are man enough to shake and agree to disagree. That's what sorts the wheat from the chaff here.

I already did ...

I know you see it quite differently and I'll just agree to disagree with you since all we could add to this discussion at this point is "Did!" & "Did Not!".

[Gob]

Ok, over to Jim.

[Rick]

After reading the 1st sentence of the 2nd post I agreed with Gob.

After reading the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the 2nd post I didn't bother reading any more of that post.

Sorry Dales, good try though

[Lord Jim]

Ok, over to Jim.

I thought this discussion was over on Friday....

I'm more than happy to drop it now, if everyone else is, and post nothing further on it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Gob]

Nice one Jim.

[dales]

Sorry Dales, good try though

Live and let live, I say.