|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/20/2010 4:46:50 PM)
|
You said that you'd address the rest of my post later. But "NO." You ignore the rest of my post, which contained a statement that should've saved you from making that last post. Your failure to address the rest of my post is an attempt to deceive "those on the side" about what's really going on. Your ignoring a critical statement actually proves what I'm saying about you... the real reason you're here. April Fools was this past April; quit trying to fool people into thinking that you're "unbiased," "objective," and "in the middle," in this debate. You're not.
angelikaJ: First, to address this: you really do not have any comprehension how much damage you do to your credibility by making statements such as that to honest people.
WRONG.
I've been debating perpetually since I came back from Operation Iraqi Freedom the first time, with a break coming in when I made this recent deployment to Iraq. I've categorized the typical "opposition" when it comes to these debates. LaTigresse isn't the first of her type, or yours, to pull the "I know someone in the military, so I know what I'm talking about" card on me. She, as well as thompsonx, mnottertail and other posters on here would rather invent things, or make things what they aren't, in an attempt to give themselves "validity," or credibility, in an argument against me... given my statements that I'm a veteran of this war, and that I've done extensive research on the topic that we're debating on.
There's nothing honest about these people, or anybody on the opposition jumping on this thread under the "auspices" of being "neutral." They're simply kicking integrity out the door so that they could massage their bruised egos.
Anybody with critical thinking abilities, who isn't on the opposing side of the argument, would see what I'm doing right off the bat. I wouldn't lose credibility points with them. The boneheads that I'm debating with have already given me "0" credibility points, but that's because they oppose me. However; I'm calling a spade a spade with these people. They're trying to BS me just so that they could have a say, and I'm calling them out on it. It's that simple. The critical thinker isn't going to see me with "less" credibility for hammering people like this. The majority of those on the side, who also have active duty experience, would also see in these people what I'm seeing in them.
angelikaJ: If you just stopped with all the personal attacks and stuck to your experiences, people might actually listen to what you had to say. (And please do not give me any variant of "but they started it" as an excuse.
WRONG AGAIN.
The opposition has their minds made up, and will not believe me no matter what. So, instead of coming to terms that someone's first-hand account contradicts what they thought was the truth, they resort to attacking me. I don't just attack, "simply because the others are attacking me." You're being too narrow minded if you're seeing things in that light. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told LadyAngelika via PM back in May.
I conduct these online debates the same way I'd conduct a combat operation. If someone attacks me, I'll attack them back. If they want to fight with fire, I'm going to fight fire with fire. If they want to escalate, I'll escalate. I'm all about giving people a taste of their own medicine. "Retaliation" is one of my favorite words in the dictionary. And I will retaliate, that's what I want to do. So don't come bitching to me about my attacking people.
Do realize that you'd have better luck walking on the surface of Mars within the next two hours than you would getting me to do something other than what I've set out to do... down to attacking the opposition for attacking me.
I live by what I call the iron rule. I treat people the way they treat me. So if you don't want me to attack others, you need to talk to the opposition, not to me. Telling me to not counter attack others is like telling me to sit on my ass when I'm under fire, vice returning fire. Not happening.
The smart way to go about getting the attacks to go down is by talking to the opposition, not to me. See what I've said above. The fact that you haven't done this, openly, speaks volumes about why you're really here, and whose side you're on.
angelikaJ: We are all responsible for our own behaviors regardless of what anyone else ever does.)
Then blame yourself for the offense you took with my other post. You wouldn't have gotten burned if you didn't make that comment in the first place. While on the topic, we could say that you deliberately ignored the rest of my message, and took me out of context.
quote:
ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
As for our discussion, you claim if I haven't served I can't possibly have any knowledge of what you are talking about.
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
This is one of the biggest things that argue against your supposed claim to be able to spot a poser. Because, if you knew how those of us in the military truly behaved, you wouldn't see my response to you as being strange."
You know that my dad was in the military, and that I volunteered at a veteran's domiciliary. I have a number of friends who served and my current Master did as well. And you assert I don't know how people in the military behave?
But that is neither here nor there.
Do you see the bolded red word in the quote that you pulled from my post? Now, add that to this statement, which you deliberately left out:
"In real life, we're much "worse" than what I am here when dealing with people trying to put an act on us, the way you're doing here." - herfacechair
Since you didn't get it, I'm going to spell it out to you.
There's a certain way we behave, and interact with each other, when our dependents aren't around compared to when military dependent are around. Military dependents/friends meet us in garrison, at our manifest point (sometimes), or at social functions. In most those places, we're in a different mode, or even mindset, when we have other people there. The dependents don't see, on a consistent bases, our inner workings, or how we truly work and behave when nobody is around... unless they work in the same environment as we do as one of our civilian employees. But even then, we leave our civilian employees behind when we deploy.
And I stand by what I said. We're bigger assholes down range, or when doing field problems, then what we are when we're in the rear/in the presence of military family members and non-military friends.
That statement also addressed another argument you attempted to make.
You, having ben around people in the military/veterans,don't inherit their active duty experience.
For instance, could you tell me what's involved with taking an outpost down and out of commission, without referring those veterans that you talk about? Could you tell me what it's like going down Highway 1 in Iraq, without referencing those veterans? If we were to meet, right now over coffee, would you be able to have a smooth, and normal, conversation with me on what transpires between guard shifts, and missions? Would you be able to talk about why they didn't want our entire battalion living in a certain section of JBB?
Would you be able to do what I've mentioned in the previous paragraph, without referencing other veterans; without having some lap dog jumping in for you with something he/she got from the Internet; or without your researching this on the Internet? I'm not just talking "book" answers, I'm talking about experiences you won't be able to get from the Internet? THAT'S what I'm talking about when I say that you don't have the experience to determine if someone is a faker or not with regards to their claims of also having served.
You, having been around veterans, having been a member of a military family, don't automatically inherit someone's active duty or reserve experience. By logical extension, it doesn't give you the knowledge to spot whether or not someone has any military experience.
With first-hand experience, you could catch fakers in the act. I could act all innocent about military things, while listening to someone relate their "military" experience. When I'm listening to veterans, or other active service members, talk, I go through the, "yup, that's how they do things, or that's what I experienced, or that's about right," or something to that effect. A faker would say something off base, and that's where I'd "pounce" if I'm face to face with him/her.
For instance, the guy claiming that he was a SEAL. As "exhibit A," he advanced the statement that SEAL Team 8 was in a compound in NAB Little Creek "just down the street from the USS Eisenhower, the aircraft carrier." One slight problem with that statement... NAB Little Creek can't take an aircraft carrier, it'd run aground before it got anywhere near the base.
That's what I'm talking about... it's little things like that which fakers take for granted and don't know about, that causes people to call them out on their claims.
Your insinuation, doubting my service, and your backing that insinuation with you previously being a family member, is comparable to this scenario. I used to live with someone that was a cashier. I didn't go around telling people how retail people went about their work day, or how they behaved, simply because of what this one cashier said, or simply because of my living with him. Your attempts to claim that you could spot a faker, simply because you were a military dependent; or that you worked where there were a lot of veterans; would be as ridiculous as me going around claiming authority on how to spot a poser claiming to be a cashier.
angelikaJ: My original post was quite simple. It did not accuse you of anything. It expressed admiration and affection for the people I knew from my volunteering.
It reminded you that your wartime experience did not make you unique and gave another example of why we should not be hasty in choosing to go to war... and it expressed my opinion that if by chance you did fabricate, I thought that was shameful. Again, it was not an accusation. Repeat Point.
Your attempts to say that my experiences "doesn't" make me unique go in the same category as Lady Boom Boom's saying that you'd get "10 different answers" from "10 different veterans" of the Iraq War. IT's an attempt to minimize a major "resume bullet" that I have that the opposition doesn't have... in an attempt to diminish the facts that I present as mere "opinions."
Your "if you're fabricating" comment describes what you're truly feeling. You also said this:
"Hypothetically, what if Ron and the others are right and his stuff is made up?" --angelikaJ
That's a clear trend indicating your wanting to cast doubt on my service. Nothing there about mnottertail and thompsonx's blatantly obvious fabricated stories; nothing on this thread showing your willingness to entertain their poser claims. You indicate that you're on their side, so you try to embellish your associations to try to give you "credibility." Which you don't.
angelikaJ: As for the other people you took issue at my not addressing, my post wasn't directed at them for specific reasons. I already have my opinions as to who is and is not credible.
The mere fact that you'd address that at me, and focus on me, speaks volumes about what you're truly doing. You're just another detractor pretending to be someone in the middle. You're actually on the opposition's side. So instead of trying to take me on with the topic on this thread, you attempt to cast doubt on my statements as to who I am. I would've believed what you claim your intent here was, if you would've called the actual posers out on this thread, just as I have. They're not the only two who've came up with BS claims of serving in the military. Your opinions as to who is, or who isn't, credible are based on your biases on this thread's topic. Your actions here speak volumes.
angelikaJ: I am not sure about you. Your personal attacks and accusations do nothing to help your case with me
Your not sure about my statements about my being in the military, yet you refuse to call the actual posers out on this thread. This argues strongly against your ability to spot posers, based on your being with your dad, and working with those veterans. This simply proves that you're incapable of determining who's an actual veteran, and who isn't.
If you had REAL military experience... having done the oath of enlistment, gone through basic, AIT, served in a permanent duty station, deployed in a military capacity, etc, there wouldn't be any doubt. The fact that I'm in the military would've been blatantly obvious to you. By the way, don't mistake my calling people out for what they really are as "accusations."
angelikaJ: but hey, if the person you talk with is credible, it will be interesting to listen to what s/he has to say.
Like the opposition, I doubt that you're going to accept what this person says if it goes counter to what you want to believe.
angelikaJ: I am not going to respond to any kind of attack from you. I will not engage that way. That is not debating, it is bullying.
Pardon me if my rubbing the holes, in your line of reasoning, on your face, constitutes an attack on you. Bottom line, you're not what you portray yourself to be. You don't have the experience needed to be able to point to a poster and say, "this guy never served!" You don't even have the military experience to cast doubt on what a veteran/service member is claiming. You're not the neutral party coming here to express a "from the sidelines" opinion. You disagree with my argument on this thread, and are trying to diminish one of the things that give me credibility over your side of the argument.
And take your, "that's not debating, it's bullying" comments to those that I'm debating with. It's many of them against me, and you're insinuating that I'm the "bully." The fact that you'd ignore that from the opposition speaks volumes about why you're really on this thread.
angelikaJ: Best wishes in finding whatever it is you are looking for. I wish you peace.
The comment that I left on my profile says that I'm here for the forums. I'm here, so I already found what I was looking for.
angelikaJ: edit: typo
This isn't the only post that you edited for one reason or another. That's an indication that you're probably jumping in here on impulse. It verifies my suspicions that you're reacting from an emotional, rather than a rational, basis.
|
|
|
|
