Gamers Can "Play" as Taliban

[ViperOverLord]

Of course, you fucking coward. You couldn't even produce a quote from mviola that supported the lie you said about him. You're a worthless piece of shit.

I condemned all of MV's statements that were of a similar tone; a couple of which included the concept that American soldiers deserved to die for being in Afghanistan. I called the statements cowardly.

You stated lies about what mviola stated. As I stated above, you couldn't even produce the quote once you were called on it (many times).

I'm not lying about anything. Here is his first statement.

"My son didn't get to start over when he was killed."

He shouldn't have went overseas then.

Exactly...you lied. Thank you for clarifying it for everyone. That wasn't so hard, was it?

You see, his statement does not at all mean what you seem to be claiming you think it means.

LOL - Explain.

[ViperOverLord]

Of course, you fucking coward. You couldn't even produce a quote from mviola that supported the lie you said about him. You're a worthless piece of shit.

I condemned all of MV's statements that were of a similar tone; a couple of which included the concept that American soldiers deserved to die for being in Afghanistan. I called the statements cowardly.

You stated lies about what mviola stated. As I stated above, you couldn't even produce the quote once you were called on it (many times).

I'm not lying about anything. Here is his first statement.

"My son didn't get to start over when he was killed."

He shouldn't have went overseas then.

If you read the next parts of what I said, I explain myself. There is a shot they will die. I'm not happy people are dying in a war. I'm against the war for this purpose only, that soldiers and civilians on both sides are dying.

I read your further statements but that is not of consequence. It does not excuse your original statement.

[Woodruff]

I condemned all of MV's statements that were of a similar tone; a couple of which included the concept that American soldiers deserved to die for being in Afghanistan. I called the statements cowardly.

You stated lies about what mviola stated. As I stated above, you couldn't even produce the quote once you were called on it (many times).

I'm not lying about anything. Here is his first statement.

"My son didn't get to start over when he was killed."

He shouldn't have went overseas then.

Exactly...you lied. Thank you for clarifying it for everyone. That wasn't so hard, was it?

You see, his statement does not at all mean what you seem to be claiming you think it means.

LOL - Explain.

Ok...he states that "he shouldn't have went overseas then". This is clearly a reference that by accepting the military duty overseas, the realization that death is certainly a possibility SHOULD be recognized. It was clearly a reference to the fact that anyone who joins the military SHOULD recognize that death is always a possibility and that by joining the volunteer force as he was, he was accepting that risk in order to carry out his duty. It was very clear to me from the beginning that was what he meant, but maybe that's because I actually read the rest of his posts in the thread.

Were you going to respond to my flag-burning question?

[Woodruff]

Also ViperOverLord...in my statement (quoted here) "I would agree with this. I did not find it cowardly either. It was several other things (<smile>), but not cowardly." what do you believe I meant with the "It was several other things <smile>) part of that quote. Did you somehow believe that those "other things" were complimentary of what he said?

You see, this is my point about your reading skills. You only partially read sometimes, and not very well at that.

[ViperOverLord]

Ok...he states that "he shouldn't have went overseas then". This is clearly a reference that by accepting the military duty overseas, the realization that death is certainly a possibility SHOULD be recognized. It was clearly a reference to the fact that anyone who joins the military SHOULD recognize that death is always a possibility and that by joining the volunteer force as he was, he was accepting that risk in order to carry out his duty. It was very clear to me from the beginning that was what he meant, but maybe that's because I actually read the rest of his posts in the thread.

Were you going to respond to my flag-burning question?

I don't think the context of the discussion was about whether or not the soldier did or did not recognize the risk of enlisting. I don't know about you; but I give the American soldier more credit than that. I think the implication was clearly that he should not have enlisted. I'll acknowledge that his comment was not clear, but that seems to be bad comprehension on your part.

As far as the flag burning; no I didn't plan on answering a bunch of additional questions while you were insistent on giving me a barrage of insults. But now that you seemed to have cooled it down, I'm still not interested in answering the question. You clearly just want to stretch out whatever my definition of 'cowardly' is and thereby diminish my original assertion that it was a cowardly position to callously diminish the troops efforts. The issue is you either believe it is a cowardly stance or you don't. So I'll ask you point blank - do you think it is cowardly to say that a it's a soldier had his death coming if he was in Afghanistan?

[ViperOverLord]

Also ViperOverLord...in my statement (quoted here) "I would agree with this. I did not find it cowardly either. It was several other things (<smile>), but not cowardly." what do you believe I meant with the "It was several other things <smile>) part of that quote. Did you somehow believe that those "other things" were complimentary of what he said?

You see, this is my point about your reading skills. You only partially read sometimes, and not very well at that.

No. I recognized the fact that you did not explicitly subscribe to MV's viewpoint. I said something along the lines that anyone that would give him a pass on that comment was being cowardly. I also said that anyone that could support that was clearly operating out of some level of contempt for the US Soldier. I never once said that you had the same exact viewpoint as him.

[Woodruff]

As far as the flag burning; no I didn't plan on answering a bunch of additional questions while you were insistent on giving me a barrage of insults. But now that you seemed to have cooled it down, I'm still not interested in answering the question. You clearly just want to stretch out whatever my definition of 'cowardly' is and thereby diminish my original assertion that it was a cowardly position to callously diminish the troops efforts.

I am doing no such thing. I am in fact attempting to show you that mviola's statement was not cowardly by providing you an example of a similar situation that hopefully with a strong explanation (as I provided) could be seen as NOT cowardly. I'm frankly confused by your unwillingness to discuss the issue, given your tremendous flag-waving in this thread.

The issue is you either believe it is a cowardly stance or you don't. So I'll ask you point blank - do you think it is cowardly to say that a it's a soldier had his death coming if he was in Afghanistan?

The term "cowardly" wouldn't at all seem to apply to it to me. As I stated previously...it would be a lot of things that are not complimentary, but "cowardly" seems like a completely illogical description given the sort of response someone could expect from such a statement (as has even been shown in this thread with a MUCH LESSER statement). If an individual is doing something for which they can expect great reprisal, I don't believe it's possible to consider that act as "cowardly". It just doesn't make any sort of sense to think that it does unless one simply doesn't understand what the term "cowardly" means.

[Army of GOD]

We'll be right back to the Woody and VOL show right after these quick messages!

[Woodruff]

Also ViperOverLord...in my statement (quoted here) "I would agree with this. I did not find it cowardly either. It was several other things (<smile>), but not cowardly." what do you believe I meant with the "It was several other things <smile>) part of that quote. Did you somehow believe that those "other things" were complimentary of what he said?

You see, this is my point about your reading skills. You only partially read sometimes, and not very well at that.

No. I recognized the fact that you did not explicitly subscribe to MV's viewpoint.

Explicitly? Do you understand what the term "explicitly" even means? Because I would suggest that you do not, in order for you to say such a thing here. I DID NOT IN ANY WAY subscribe to mviola's viewpoint...there was not "explicitly" about it at all.

I said something along the lines that anyone that would give him a pass on that comment was being cowardly. I also said that anyone that could support that was clearly operating out of some level of contempt for the US Soldier. I never once said that you had the same exact viewpoint as him.

I didn't in any way "give mviola a pass on his comment" NOR did I in any way "support it". As I stated above, this is my point about your reading skills. You only partially read sometimes, and not very well at that. I am not trying to slam on you (though I can certainly see why you might take it that way, particularly given that you do what I'm saying here), I am simply stating a point of fact.

[Woodruff]

We'll be right back to the Woody and VOL show right after these quick messages!

Don't you have somewhere else where you can try to up your post count with your spam?

[Army of GOD]

Off-topics don't raise your post count.

[ViperOverLord]

As far as the flag burning; no I didn't plan on answering a bunch of additional questions while you were insistent on giving me a barrage of insults. But now that you seemed to have cooled it down, I'm still not interested in answering the question. You clearly just want to stretch out whatever my definition of 'cowardly' is and thereby diminish my original assertion that it was a cowardly position to callously diminish the troops efforts.

I am doing no such thing. I am in fact attempting to show you that mviola's statement was not cowardly by providing you an example of a similar situation that hopefully with a strong explanation (as I provided) could be seen as NOT cowardly. I'm frankly confused by your unwillingness to discuss the issue, given your tremendous flag-waving in this thread.

Feel free to just state your example. It's not going to change my mind about his statement being cowardly. It's not about an unwillingness to state an opinion on it at this time. I have no desire to state my opinion about flag burning at this time. I don't feel it relates to the discussion but again make your correlation and perhaps you'll prove me wrong. I am skeptical that that'll be the case.

[ViperOverLord]

I didn't in any way "give mviola a pass on his comment" NOR did I in any way "support it". As I stated above, this is my point about your reading skills. You only partially read sometimes, and not very well at that. I am not trying to slam on you (though I can certainly see why you might take it that way, particularly given that you do what I'm saying here), I am simply stating a point of fact.

I feel you gave him a pass. His comment was cowardly. If you cannot recognize that fact then that is giving a pass. Perhaps when you finally explain why his comment was not cowardly then I'll be will adjust my position on this. But I believe you gave him a pass.

[Woodruff]

As far as the flag burning; no I didn't plan on answering a bunch of additional questions while you were insistent on giving me a barrage of insults. But now that you seemed to have cooled it down, I'm still not interested in answering the question. You clearly just want to stretch out whatever my definition of 'cowardly' is and thereby diminish my original assertion that it was a cowardly position to callously diminish the troops efforts.

I am doing no such thing. I am in fact attempting to show you that mviola's statement was not cowardly by providing you an example of a similar situation that hopefully with a strong explanation (as I provided) could be seen as NOT cowardly. I'm frankly confused by your unwillingness to discuss the issue, given your tremendous flag-waving in this thread.

Feel free to just state your example.

I did. It was quite long. I'm not sure how you missed it. Unless you intentionally did so. Which we all know is the case, because that's just what you do.

[Woodruff]

I didn't in any way "give mviola a pass on his comment" NOR did I in any way "support it". As I stated above, this is my point about your reading skills. You only partially read sometimes, and not very well at that. I am not trying to slam on you (though I can certainly see why you might take it that way, particularly given that you do what I'm saying here), I am simply stating a point of fact.

I feel you gave him a pass. His comment was cowardly. If you cannot recognize that fact then that is giving a pass. Perhaps when you finally explain why his comment was not cowardly then I'll be will adjust my position on this. But I believe you gave him a pass.

Where to start...where to start. How about at the beginning:

When I said "Of course that's true. But with that knowledge there always resides the hope that it won't happen. And just because it does happen doesn't make the pain of it go away, certainly. And MOST complaints from parents is from the pain, really." was that giving him a pass?

When I said "You have to remember...it wasn't necessarily voluntary on the parents' part. Only on the military individual's part." was that giving him a pass?

When I said "I didn't say, but I do disagree not only with what you said but even more stridently how you said it. I also don't at all think thegreekdog was trying to use his influence as a moderator." was that giving him a pass?

Even my statement that you took such issue with, which was "I did not find it cowardly either. It was several other things (<smile>), but not cowardly." contains the implication that I found his statement to be several other things that were not complimentary...and so that wasn't even giving him a pass.

In fact, I cannot find a SINGLE STATEMENT by myself...NOT ONE...in which it can even be IMPLIED that I was giving him a pass for his statement.

Perhaps when you finally explain why his comment was not cowardly then I'll be will adjust my position on this.

What do you mean "finally"? I have explained it...more than once. In fact, I have explained it quite plainly and quite clearly. It frankly and quite simply is not "cowardly" because it goes completely counter to what being "cowardly" is. If someone can reasonably expect great reprisal for doing something, then when they do it anyway, they simply cannot be "cowardly". There are plenty of terms that fit, but "cowardly" quite simply does not. Words have fucking meaning - use them properly.

[ViperOverLord]

As far as the flag burning; no I didn't plan on answering a bunch of additional questions while you were insistent on giving me a barrage of insults. But now that you seemed to have cooled it down, I'm still not interested in answering the question. You clearly just want to stretch out whatever my definition of 'cowardly' is and thereby diminish my original assertion that it was a cowardly position to callously diminish the troops efforts.

I am doing no such thing. I am in fact attempting to show you that mviola's statement was not cowardly by providing you an example of a similar situation that hopefully with a strong explanation (as I provided) could be seen as NOT cowardly. I'm frankly confused by your unwillingness to discuss the issue, given your tremendous flag-waving in this thread.

Feel free to just state your example.

I did. It was quite long. I'm not sure how you missed it.

Perhaps it was because you were so busy casting insults that I didn't take the time to read every word you had to write. Nonetheless I'll apologize as a matter pragmatism for not seeing it. Apparently you are referring to this:

"First of all, it takes great courage to do something for which you might have very good reason to believe that you'll get the living crap beaten out of you by folks like me for doing such a thing.
Secondly, it takes great courage to state in such a public and graphic way that you are unhappy with the direction that your nation is taking.
Thirdly, it is their RIGHT to do so. I spent 23 years in the military DEFENDING THEIR RIGHT TO BURN THE FLAG. I am in no way happy or satisfied when it happens, but by God, that's one of the reasons I was there. To defend their right to do it. I will do everything in my personal power to try to stop them, but I recognize that they have the right to try.

And now I have one more question for you. Do you believe that I feel this way because I have contempt for the flag? Because I would tell you that I feel this way because I hold the flag in such HIGH ESTEEM that I recognize that the flag is not more important than the rights it is a symbol of. Wrap your brain around that one."

Let me say that it took no courage for him to callously disregard the death of an American soldier. And it doesn't matter whether he's in the majority or the minority. It's just a despicable statement period. Also the direction of the nation (good or bad) does not excuse his despicable statement. That soldier sacrificed his life for us and to do anything less than acknowledge that is cowardly.

Last, I don't know that I equate flag burners with people that callously disregard the an American soldier's life. I can certainly see the similarities and the differences in such things.

[Woodruff]

Perhaps it was because you were so busy casting insults that I didn't take the time to read every word you had to write.

Not in that post I wasn't.

Let me say that it took no courage for him to callously disregard the death of an American soldier.

There is a vast difference between "cowardly" and "no courage". A tremendous difference. Think in terms of numbers..."cowardly" would be in the negative numbers while "courage" would be in the positive numbers. "No courage" would be zero.

And it doesn't matter whether he's in the majority or the minority.

Actually, it does. It's EASY to make "despicable statements" (to use your words) when you're in the majority. It's not so easy to do when you're in the minority.

It's just a despicable statement period.

This in no way shows cowardice. In fact, I would suggest that this makes it more likely to NOT be "cowardly".

Also the direction of the nation (good or bad) does not excuse his despicable statement.

Of course not. I wouldn't (and didn't) suggest that it does.

That soldier sacrificed his life for us and to do anything less than acknowledge that is cowardly.

I don't believe mviola made any statement one way or the other on that part of the issue.

So...are you ready to admit that I did not in any way support mviola's statement and that I, in fact, expressed that I disagreed with him?

[mviola]

Perhaps it was because you were so busy casting insults that I didn't take the time to read every word you had to write.

Not by that point I wasn't.

Let me say that it took no courage for him to callously disregard the death of an American soldier.

There is a vast difference between "cowardly" and "no courage". A tremendous difference. Think in terms of numbers..."cowardly" would be in the negative numbers while "courage" would be in the positive numbers. "No courage" would be zero.

And it doesn't matter whether he's in the majority or the minority.

Actually, it does. It's EASY to make "despicable statements" (to use your words) when you're in the majority. It's not so easy to do when you're in the minority.

It's just a despicable statement period.

This in no way shows cowardice. In fact, I would suggest that this makes it more likely to NOT be "cowardly".

Also the direction of the nation (good or bad) does not excuse his despicable statement.

Of course not. I wouldn't (and didn't) suggest that it does.

That soldier sacrificed his life for us and to do anything less than acknowledge that is cowardly.

I don't believe mviola made any statement one way or the other on that part of the issue.

For the last time VOL, I'm referring to the point that there is a shot that someone in the military may not come home. I'm not trying to give every soldier a bad name for doing something they believe in.

[ViperOverLord]

- "There is a vast difference between "cowardly" and "no courage". A tremendous difference. Think in terms of numbers..."cowardly" would be in the negative numbers while "courage" would be in the positive numbers. "No courage" would be zero."

Yes, but you are the one that said it took courage for him to say what he said. Courage was your term. I said that it took no courage and that it was cowardly. I never said they were one in the same.

- "Actually, it does. It's EASY to make "despicable statements" (to use your words) when you're in the majority. It's not so easy to do when you're in the minority."

My point was that it is not a matter or public opinion. Only a coward would callously disregard the death of an American soldier.

-

It's just a despicable statement period.

Wood: This in no way shows cowardice. In fact, I would suggest that this makes it more likely to NOT be "cowardly".

That's terrible logic.

That soldier sacrificed his life for us and to do anything less than acknowledge that is cowardly.

Wood: I don't believe mviola made any statement one way or the other on that part of the issue.

He was quite clear that he was not expressing sympathy for the soldier because he should not have been there (enlisted). It is not as you tried to state that the soldier was not aware of the risks when he enrolled. If you cannot admit that premise then you are being disingenuous.

- "So...are you ready to admit that I did not in any way support mviola's statement and that I, in fact, expressed that I disagreed with him?"

I have already admitted that you did not have the same explicit viewpoint as him.

[ViperOverLord]

I tell you what Woody. I still think your interpretation of MV's statement is disingenuous. But if you say that you read it a separate way and that you are not sympathizing with a callous remark about a soldier's death then no I'm not calling you a coward. Although I do think that it is clear that that is what the debate was all about all along. That is clearly why people were worked up before you and I got into it but w/e. I'm not too interested in debating this issue to the last burning ember.

[Georgerx7di]

Now what you said on page 5 is different from what I said in my 3rd to last post. I clearly stated that one thing when in fact your post on page 7, paragraph 3, line 2 says the exact opposite. Thus proving that Mercury is in fact a planet and butter is better for you than margarine.

[mviola]

I tell you what Woody. I still think your interpretation of MV's statement is disingenuous. But if you say that you read it a separate way and that you are not sympathizing with a callous remark about a soldier's death then no I'm not calling you a coward. Although I do think that it is clear that that is what the debate was all about all along. That is clearly why people were worked up before you and I got into it but w/e. I'm not too interested in debating this issue to the last burning ember.

Already there man.

[Woodruff]

There is a vast difference between "cowardly" and "no courage". A tremendous difference. Think in terms of numbers..."cowardly" would be in the negative numbers while "courage" would be in the positive numbers. "No courage" would be zero.

Yes, but you are the one that said it took courage for him to say what he said. Courage was your term. I said that it took no courage and that it was cowardly. I never said they were one in the same.

Yeah, you're right, I had forgotten that. I stand by that statement, in fact...it DID take courage. And I have explained in several different posts exactly why it did take courage (interestingly enough, the exact same posts in which I was explaining how it was not cowardly).

Actually, it does. It's EASY to make "despicable statements" (to use your words) when you're in the majority. It's not so easy to do when you're in the minority.

My point was that it is not a matter or public opinion.

I wholeheartedly agree that it's not a matter of public opinion. It's a matter of definition. By definition, his statements were not cowardly.

Only a coward would callously disregard the death of an American soldier.

What precisely is cowardly about that, ViperOverLord? Spell out for me exactly what is cowardly about that?

It's just a despicable statement period.

This in no way shows cowardice. In fact, I would suggest that this makes it more likely to NOT be "cowardly".

That's terrible logic.

You state that "That's terrible logic", but then you don't bother to show WHY that's terrible logic. Perhaps you can point out for me exactly WHY it's terrible logic to say that just because something is "a despicable statement" that it therefore must show cowardice. Prove your point, don't just say it.

That soldier sacrificed his life for us and to do anything less than acknowledge that is cowardly.

I don't believe mviola made any statement one way or the other on that part of the issue.

He was quite clear that he was not expressing sympathy for the soldier because he should not have been there (enlisted). It is not as you tried to state that the soldier was not aware of the risks when he enrolled. If you cannot admit that premise then you are being disingenuous.

Sympathy is irrelevant to the subject. And if you had bothered to read, mviola HIMSELF stated EXACTLY what I did.

So...are you ready to admit that I did not in any way support mviola's statement and that I, in fact, expressed that I disagreed with him?

I have already admitted that you did not have the same explicit viewpoint as him.

Explicitly? Do you understand what the term "explicitly" even means? Because I would suggest that you do not, in order for you to say such a thing here. I DID NOT IN ANY WAY subscribe to mviola's viewpoint...there was not "explicitly" about it at all. But we've seen this dog-and-pony show before, haven't we Marxist?

[Georgerx7di]

This is like one of those boxing matches back in the old days when they didn't stop after 12 rounds. Right now is like the 23rd. Someone in the crowd is woken by a noise, "oh, what, did somebody win yet?" she asks. "No their still fighting," a man says almost in disgust as he goes back to reading his paper. Elsewhere children run around the boxing ring playing, as their parents can no longer control them after hours of sitting.

The boxer in the blue trunks lands a punch. The man in the red stumbles, but his opponent is to tire to follow it up with. Thirty seconds later the bell sounds, on to the 24th round...

[The Bison King]

I'm back! and I read the whole thing!

Maybe this will help VOP:

Coward: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity

Maybe he read up to "one who shows disgrace" and stopped reading because he saw enough to support his argument?

See also: