Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ian

Trouble

Recommended Posts

Please don't take offence if you catch a bullet when you're invited into the parlour. But a little less longwindedness might be handy. Trust me, from experience I know.

 

Cheers,

 

I

I belive that bullet had my name on it Doc. :) By the time I saw it, thought about it, and rephrased my earlier comment, .....well, I'm just too slow. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I belive that bullet had my name on it Doc. :) By the time I saw it, thought about it, and rephrased my earlier comment, .....well, I'm just too slow. :lol:

Well, when the bullets are flying without aim sometimes it is hard to predict where they will strike. ;)

 

 

 

Chopdoc, Iain was the "founding" moderator for the forums. He is no longer a moderator. I really think his post (that ticked you off) wasn't meant as an actual physical threat.

Well, thank you for stating that plainly! Should it not say "former" then? Just a thought. :)

 

 

I am glad to see some more voices raised while I was gone.

 

As far as the "mildly offensive" comment I think I may share that feeling. I just think it is difficult to say that the atrocities committed by the Catholic church are defensible because they felt they were right. The Crusades and the Inquisitions backed by the church were of the most despicable type of human behavior we know. That is ancient history and does not evoke great emotion from me though. I simply recognise it for what it is.

 

The expression of mild offense does not need to be a confrontational thing. I hope that we can tolerate that without it being inflammatory. A direct insult, even an unintended one may require a rebuke but I think mild offense simply and plainly states somebody's gut feeling on something.

 

DW, I think you can at least agree that the torture and bloodshed commited by the church was brutal and could easily be considered mildly offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

DW, I think you can at least agree that the torture and bloodshed commited by the church was brutal and could easily be considered mildly offensive.

 

But you and Kali seemed to have missed my point....their actions were valid in *their*eyes (their side of the fence).

 

My previous statements are certainy true and should not be taken as being offensive in any way as that was never the intention.

 

:erm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But you and Kali seemed to have missed my point....their actions were valid in *their*eyes (their side of the fence).

 

My previous statements are certainy true and should not be taken as being offensive in any way as that was never the intention.

 

:erm:

No, I din't miss it. I agree, their actions were valid in their eyes. That simply does not make them valid or defensible.

 

 

They may have believed with all their hearts they were doing what was right, in fact they likely did, just as the terrorists on 9/11 did, just like Osama does. Do you not believe that those terrorists hold their beliefs that they are doing what is right just as strongly and with just as much faith as the Crusaders did?

 

One can be admired for standing up for their beliefs and for going to great lengths to defend them but that does not mean that their actions are defensible.

 

Do I hold the great strength of will and fortitude of the terrorists in high regard? You bet I do. Could you do that?

 

I heard them called cowards so many times and just laughed at that. That is just lashing out in frustration with insults. They were quite brave with great courage of conviction. Could you do that?

 

Nonetheless their actions are despicable and indefensible. I condemn their actions in every way. But by your standard they are defensible.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The expression of mild offense does not need to be a confrontational thing. I hope that we can tolerate that without it being inflammatory. A direct insult, even an unintended one may require a rebuke but I think mild offense simply and plainly states somebody's gut feeling on something.

 

Totally!

 

Being mildly offended didn't mean I was going to stomp out of here and never come back, or rag on DW in every one of his posts because he disagreed with me. It's cool... I just hear the words "catholic church" sometimes and my hackles go up. :blushing: I'm a little weird.

 

Carry on dudes! :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

No, I din't miss it. I agree, their actions were valid in their eyes.

Stop the presses.......doc you got the point I was trying to make. In their eyes...their side of the fence....the actions were valid.

 

Sigh. :rolleyes:

 

Carry on dudes!  :mrgreen:

Will do. :mrwinky:

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop the presses.......doc you got the point I was trying to make. In their eyes...their side of the fence....the actions were valid.

 

Sigh. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Will do. :mrwinky:

DW, I think few in this thread would dispute your point. We're, I think, attempting to take a look at war etc. and see if we can do better inspite of that.

 

In other words, it's not an issue, it's a given. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a given, but if that's what he wants he can have it.....some of us just want more. ;)

 

We're, I think, attempting to take a look at war etc. and see if we can do better inspite of that.

 

I like the way you put that. It has meaning on several levels. Well said.

 

 

EDIT: Late for work and a very busy day ahead, I don't know when I will get back to this but I left something hanging that I should get back to....so I will.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DW, another way to look at this is that we are trying to figure out if the reasons a war started will stand the test of time. So far, we have failed to find a war that this is true for. The only ones that may are ones that resemble the American Revolution but me and Doc have agreed it is virtually impossible for us to look at in an ubias manner. We would also have to use assumptions rather than facts in order to come to a conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...