Honoring The Troops Thread

[El Lakers]

My point is this: There is no difference in honoring the troops in Iraq and the troops in Afghanistan, or the troops in Korea, or any of the troops who have died in previous wars. In fact, I think putting these troops together in ONE group, one American group who have fought for their country, is a great honor. Let’s say that a mother, a father, a cousin, or a brother of one of these men or women who have fought and died in one of America’s wars, was to visit our forum. Which do you think would show more honor to their loved one? A thread with a picture and a brief bio of their beloved with a little “R.I.P” at the bottom? Or a collection of pictures, stories, comments, and memories of not only their loved one, but other American heroes who have given their life for their country? I, for one, think that a mother or father would find great honor in seeing their son or daughter be in the same group as other American heroes in history.

[SChaos1701]

I will have to agree.

[icecelt]

I have no problem with the thread drift whatsoever. I like honoring everyone. It's not a problem with me like it might be with Sam.

My problem is with a moderator going in long after the fact and changing a thread title like that without regard for what it originally was, based on the topic STARTER'S desires to start a thread for a certain purpose.

Suppose I started a thread that said "Obama is a prat", ok? Whatever, use that one. The moderator of the boards comes in and changes it to "McCain is a prat." It has now changed up what I had originally intended to say when I started the thread.

That is intellectually dishonest. Flat out, no squirming. A moderator with powers on a political board has more responsibility, in a way, to show a record of what was originally intended and originally said, and should not edit or delete posts with such a heated debate happening behind them. Anyone else coming in now, suppose some stranger wanders in, is seeing an incomplete and dishonest account of what happened.

THAT is my problem with how this was handled. The thread could have been split, one for Iraq soldiers, one for soldiers of all other wars. The thread might have deleted all together (disrespectful to all the soldiers contained therein). The thread might have had a word from the moderator at the top, depending on software allowances, that says 'Originally titled, retitled to". But a complete change of an entire topic title when the title and contents of the thread are what is under debate is an abuse of moderator power. I'm calling it.

[Bat-Dude]

[SChaos1701]

I could see your point if this were a debate thread where yes, I completely agree with you. But this isn't a debate thread. This is a memorial thread.

[Bat-Dude]

Who was that in response to?

[SChaos1701]

[Sam]

[SteelHorseman]

Re: Re-titling the thread ...

I agree there's no need to change the original thread title, but I can see why it was done ... to cut off whining about who can post what in a thread. Thus, it was an innocent "abuse." But I think dude did the right thing in changing it back.

More important is the principal that the thread starter does not have the authority to regulate who can post what in his/her thread. If someone wants to do this he/she should limit posting to his/her blog where the message can be strictly controlled.

So, Dude, I give you props for standing up for this principal and being flexible enough to moderate yourself.

[Bat-Dude]

[Sam]

It's not called whining when it's standing up for what's right and defending a thread who's purpose is to honor the troops who've died in Iraq.

I'm very disappointed that this board doesn't respect the US troops who've lost their lives in Iraq. To let that thread get filled up with off topic posts, other wars and posts about people who are still alive is disrespectful for the thread, the lost troops, and even the troops whom the off topic posts are about. They deserve their own thread.

If the agenda of the people on this board and the admin was not to ruin my thread, they would have made another on the topics they've chosen to post on. It's clear what the plan was.

[SChaos1701]

My sister is on active duty in the Air Force right now. How dare Chaos or any other people on this board accuse me of having some reason other than honoring the troops in making that thread. You should be ashamed.

And I've buried two very close friends and member of my old unit who were killed in Iraq.

I should be ashamed? I, unlike you and others here and around this country, had the courage and conviction to serve this country. What have you done? On top of that, how would your sister like to know that you support military recruiters being banned from college campuses and not being allowed to possibly get the support and personnel she and other soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen needs to do their job. Don't try to deny it, you've posted all about it over here. And I should be ashamed...

[SChaos1701]

Also how would your sister like to know you said and I quote...

"What's false about - if you study hard and get a good education you can do well, if you don't you could get stuck in Iraq.

?

What's false about that?"

http://www.politicaldiscussion.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137023&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=recruiters&start=0

[SteelHorseman]

[Sam]

That was a mistake. I get the pictures and the obits from militarycity.com and they show the troops dying in both wars we are involved in at this time. I'm not purposefully taking the thread off topic like you guys are.

[SteelHorseman]

[icecelt]

I kinda see it this way.

Sam, you know, I think wanted to respect the veterans. I am not going to say she had some devious agenda. She does have active duty family in the military, as she's stated, and though she's against the war, it is quite probable that her intentions were in fact to respect the ones who have died, whether she agrees with the war or not. Regardless of what people see as her own personal motives, which shouldn't have come into it, I thought the thread was a fine thing, giving honor to those who have fallen. Steel could have started it, or Jimmy, or Shane. It would all mean the same thing to me - it's about the soldiers.

Other people saw it as propaganda to say 'Stop the war! Stop these fine people from dying!" Which some people have most assuredly done. And you know, their intentions are well meant, though I kind of despise people using strangers for political agendas. They have no idea if the soldier thought was he or she was doing was the right thing. That's up to the soldier. The soldier isn't some political tool and shouldn't be. The solider is doing their job. We honor them when they die, serving all of us.

Her motives, or lack of, or whether it is seen as propaganda or not, the point is, the thread did indeed honor every single person who died. It's a fine testament to the people who did their duty with honor. I don't see it as propaganda, I see it as just that, a tribute.

Sometimes you take things at face value. Sometimes you just have to kind of understand that despite what you THINK the motives of others are, you take what is in front of your face and deal with it in that manner. It stops a lot of bad feelings. I know all of you to be good people, with deep philosophical differences. But assigning motives and machinations and terrible things to each other, that's not right. You take the argument, or the thread, at face value. You deal with it as it stands.

Now again, I think commemorating all people who serve is a good thing. I wouldn't mind firefighters in that thread, or anything. I'm taking it strictly at face value and if sometimes, amongst the people who are serving in Iraq, are people in Afghanistan, or who served in WW2, or a good, honest cop who died in the line of duty in Indiana, even, the POINT IS that ALL of those people in that thread deserve our utmost respect for their dedication.

That's what matters in the end. Also, the title of the thread, hijacked or not, political point or not, matters not because THREAD DRIFT happens online. It has happened since USENET, since only people in Universities and ARPA could access the fucking thing. Nobody is going to change that. Nobody is going to keep everyone on total topic unless the mods decide to do it, and mods are human. Also, would you want anyone in that thread deleted? I wouldn't. I think the best thing is to straddle the line here. Sam posts who she wants to honor, other people post who they want to honor, keep the bickering out of there because my God, that's disrespectful to all those people, and leave the thread title as it originally was to see the original intent, even if it has drifted.

That's my opinion. I mean obviously. Duh.

[Sam]

Thanks ice.

It's so offensive, after posting in that thread, which has made me cry, to be accused of having some evil agenda. So completely offensive.

[SChaos1701]

[SteelHorseman]

[Sam]

[SChaos1701]