i am truly ashamed of "we, the people"

been offline for two days except for an hour - down dsl..

came back to see the brouhaha over a dairist accused of being a "hoax" and i'm very annoyed and upset and angry!

this "need" at dk to excoriate ANY writer who is suspected of being "not real" has gone beyond the pale!  diarist writes incredibly moving diaries.  people are touched on a visceral level.  people scream FRAUD! hunter claims hoax. people go ballistic. hunter goes oops.  people attack each other.... what the hell is wrong with this picture?

what ever happened to allowing ourselves to FEEL pain and suffering - if the writer has or hasn't first hand experienced it is irrelevent to the topic.  it is as irrelevent as the period, comma, misspelled word.
why is he being torn to shreds?  because a few people are WOUNDED because they feel their emotions were "played'

so?  people resent having a deep emotional reaction to real pain and suffering?   well, there is something much worse  happening here than having your emotions "played"!

have any of you even LOOKED at the pictures of those who are being maimed, damaged, harmed or slaughtered in this farce of a "war"?  what the HELL do you think is being done to the soldiers in this country, the civilians in iraq?

if this type of writing can upset you and the rest of this nation enough to get off it's collective ass to STOP this madness, then the diarist has contributed a great deal to this community!

i will NOT debate whether or not adam is real or not - frankly, his WORDS are real - this WAR is real. his WORDS depict the pain and anguish suffered by REAL people in the REAL world.  if he is real, i plead and beg his forgiveness for our cruelty and crass behavior.  if he is not a vet, then he deserves a nobel peace prize for the impact his writing has had.  either way, the community is better for his being here!

his words TOUCHED you!  his words AFFECTED you!  his words STIRRED PASSION.  please explain to me how that is bad?  

what is wrong with caring?  what is wrong with empathising with a situation that we know exists?  what is WRONG with US as a community is more important.

this continual game of playing GOTCHA! with diarists/posters or screaming "YOU LIED" - is this more important than discussing the subject matter of the diaristposter?  

some in this community ask, no, DEMAND that every word be backed in fact.  if not, then nothing is to be considered.  i can't help but wonder if these posters ever attend a play, look at a painting or read.  art and literature are meant to inspire, disturb, evoke strong emotions.  how does it diminish any individual to experience emotions?  to FEEL another's pain?  we do not live in a world of absolutes.

damn why am i so angry over this? i can't get the visual of that young soldier on his newfangled spiffy "artificial leg" - the "newest" technology and "best" technology we can offer - to replace the limb that was needlessly ripped from his body.  i watched the panic in his face as he almost dropped a strand of pearls and, subsequently, his balance in trying to keep them from falling.  he was trying to show his wife how "capable" he was with his new "leg".  and in that moment, the facade dropped and he was afraid.  because i see these kids up close and very personal,  i FEEL their suffering!  i hurt with them as i try not to make the situation worse - so all of us pretend it never happened.

adam's painful depiction of stories of iraq are VERY real - there are people living that same life he describes right now!  his story evokes that same very REAL emotion within ME that says - DO something! do it NOW!

i am so damned angry that people are just so quick to condemn and dismiss this diarist in an attempt to prove how "wise" THEY are.  what is worse is the arrogance of those purveyors of "truth" as they ridicule those who chose to show compassion.  there is an air of superiority permeating this site these days as people berate and belittle those who were not as prescient as they.  what has any poster here LOST because of this diary?  a leg?  an arm?  an eye? the peace of mind that we all take for granted?

what the not-so-clever critics don't realize is they are dismissing EVERY soldier who comes back with his/her personal nightmares in this type of vitriolic attack.

such rejection of someone who says "i am a soldier" with screams of LIAR LIAR because WE are uncomfortable pushes ALL soldiers further into that black hole of isolation that drives them to alcohol, drugs, suicide.  we haven't rejected adam - we have rejected his descriptino of war - because we were uncomfortable.

do these kids have to beat us upside the head with their artificial limbs to get us to accept that people are suffering?  

damnit.  i'm getting off now.  if this is the new direction of dailykos - if this is dk4 - then i really have to examine whether or not i want to be here.

i wish my dsl would go out again.

•  Reality-based community.

  That is why we call fraud, especially if someone is playing the sympathy card. If he had been the person he presented himself as, he would have deserved our good wishes and better yet, our help.

  Had he presented his writing as a dramatization, a fictional account, meant to bring us closer to "the pain and anguish suffered by REAL people in the REAL world" that would have been fine as well.

  How is misrepresenting his status as a wounded Iraq vet helpful in ending this awful war? How is that misrepresentation any different from how the neocons "make their own reality?" Just because the issue is one that touches you in all the right places doesn't make it the right way to promote a point of view, even if it is one so important as peace and an end to the travesty of BushCo's "foreign policy."

  Also, the issue with the "writing style" of those who eschew capitalization, punctuation and spaces is a different issue than that of the veracity of the person's claims to be an Iraq veteran, it would help if you would address them separately if that bothers you too.

  I have no doubt that I will be assailed as being heartless and unfeeling, when the opposite is actually the case, but I still felt I had to address this call for "selective" reality.

  by highacidity on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 11:46:15 AM PDT

  •  highacidity, we have absolutely NO evidence

    that he IS a "fraud" - only the accusations of people who believe him to be a fraud.

    and, if WE are the ones who are wrong?  what damage then?

    had he put in a request for money, yes, treat with scepticism, then make up one's own mind.

    this man came to talk.  period.

    i've looked at his myspace page.  i see nothing to counter his assertations.  all i hear on THIS site is the "I believe his is a fraud" crowd.

    add to this "scepticism" based on no fact, there is the potential for real damage here.  what is that damage?  reject ANY and ALL people who do not meet the standards of of a few critics who are loud and demanding that all truths but theirs be rejected.  the ugliness and nastiness in his diaries are embarrassing - there is a vicious pack mentality emerging here that is wrong.

    we have reached a crossroads here, imho.   i, for one, don't like the directions that are our choices.  

    by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 11:56:37 AM PDT

    •  Hunter does have his doubts as to..

      ... whether or not he is a sockpuppet, but not whether or not he is a troll. My opinion and "feel" upon further examination is to agree with the troll designation. Which is up for debate, and your opinion at this point is as valid as mine.

      But that is not my real point. What I was trying to say in my inelegant way is that I disagree with your concept that it doesn't matter if the guy was a fraud or not, what mattered only is that he was trying to make us see the suffering of the people who are really living the horror of BushCo's reign. I don't believe that the truth should be compromised, even if it serves a purpose that I wholeheartedly support... the same purpose you do in this case.

      As to your take on the direction this site is taking, that is of course your decision based on your comfort level with the discourse here... I see the pack behavior here as well, but in this specific instance, I viewed it as working in the other direction, the piling on was done to those who were trying to politely say two different things: they weren't comfortable with the premise of the diaries, and that they had trouble with reading the "style" of prose.

      (My last statement does not apply to anyone who was a jerk about stating their opinions... a jerk is a jerk on every "side" IMHO.)

      Thank you for the non-attack reply.

      by highacidity on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:32:07 PM PDT

      •  my concern continues to be the use

        of language... the use of the word "fraud" colors the situation immediately... instead of asking the diarist more questions that could either confirm or break apart his story, the tactic here of late seems to be to scream "HOAX" and, yes, "FRAUD" without proof that either accusation is true.

        we all have "feelings" that we follow - that sixth sense, or hair on the back of the neck response.  what i am trying to bring out in this diary is that we bring our own experiences to the table and each of us has a different trigger for that "fraud" feeling.

        BUT, that "fraud" feeling comes from inside of US - and to assert that the feeling is an absolute without proper evidence to substantiate it leaves all parties vulnerable to mistakes - horrible mistakes.

        hunter found out when he asserted that the diarist was "pastor dan" - then had to rescind that assertation - but the damage was done.  many had used hunters assumption as the gospel and piled on to the diarist with a vengeance.

        what i do not understand is the extreme agression by some in denouncing the "witch" - this type of mass hysteria had horrific results in salem of yore - and it has the same deleterious effect here.

        my call for reasoned analysis here is simple.  if the bells and whistles go off - either ask questions that will give you a better understanding of the diarist or do your homework. this diarist provided links.  those links are related to other links.  those all show a common consistency that lead me to belive AFTER reading through them that he is exactly what he says he is.  and, in that, we have done him grave harm.  we have also done this site grave harm.

        for every innocent we injure, that person tells yet another and yet another.

        this reminds me of a parable i live by - was told it many years ago and hold it close today.

        a man comes to his priest and says, "father forgive me for i have sinned - i have told a lie about someone - i have gossiped"  the father told the man, "for penance, i want you to take a pillow to the top of the mountain, cut it open and scatter the feathers to the winds.  then i want you to retrieve those feathers and place them back into the pillow".

        the man protested loudly, "father! that is IMPOSSIBLE!"

        the priest replied, "and that, my son, is what happens when you gossip..."

        words do harm - once spoken, their shadow lingers and cannot be erased.  we seem to forget this on this site.

        by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:45:14 PM PDT

        •  This one sentence is one we all should heed:

          words do harm - once spoken, their shadow lingers and cannot be erased.  we seem to forget this on this site.

          That we don't always do that is the curse of online communication in general, I think.

          I think there were people who were asking questions, and were jumped on by the herd ("how dare you question a soldier!")... that is what I saw and that is what makes me sad about where the site is going.

          I am aware that our individual judgments as to anything is colored by our individual experiences... and again, I think the diarist was playing with the community. Only an opinion as things stand now.

          Your call for reasoned analysis is also well-said... but I did not see much of that, on either "side." "Heartless" and "Elitist" were screamed as much if not more thatn "Fraud" and "Hoax." Both "sides" did not look good.

          I think we agree on most things here, but I haven't seen you address for the premise that it is okay to bend the truth to the point of breaking as long as the cause is good. Did I misread that in your diary?

          by highacidity on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:04:24 PM PDT

          •  you asked a valid question...

            I think we agree on most things here, but I haven't seen you address for the premise that it is okay to bend the truth to the point of breaking as long as the cause is good. Did I misread that in your diary?

            i think that my diary could have expressed my feelings more clearly had i been able to see through the rage.

            i tried to make clear that whether adam's identity is valid or not is not what disturbs me.  

            what i find disturbing is the accusations that were made based on no more proof of truth than adam's diary.  without substaniation, only "feelings", this man was called a liar, a hoax, a fraud.

            i do not suggest that creating a false frame with the intent to deceive is a good thing... nor do i condone accusing someone of being "false" without having ABSOLUTE proof of that accusation.  in legal terms, it is called slander.  the damage done to a person's reputation by leveling false accusations is immeasureable and intractable.

            no one on this site had any "proof" that adam was not what he portended - even hunter, in his overt haste, banned him and then had to retract his assertation that adam was a fraud - but hunter did not retract the banning.

            explain to me how one undoes an execution?  this online execution - simply saying "i'm sorry, but you're still banned because YOU created a disturbance" is insufficient.

            adam didn't create a disturbance.  those who read his words created that disturbance with their reactions to him and his words.  they were not harmed by their accusations that have no substantiation, but he has been harmed.  

            i, personally, believe him.  why? because i did my homework.  i read his myspace.  i did the research.  he checks out - and he has a right to be very angry with this community.  and we have every reason to be ashamed.  i know i am.  that is why i am seriously considering whether i want to have my name associated with this site - this diary is my attempt to right this situation, to ask the community to reassess our behavior here - and if it has no effect, then i am in the wrong place.

            by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:43:14 PM PDT

  •  OOPS...I accidently hit the "recommend button"

    I was going to ask...how dare you decide that he is a hoax...with no evidence...even Hunter recanted.

    by Bluedoc on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 08:25:04 PM PDT

  •  One problem: we ended up wanting conclusive

    evidence of innocence.  Otherwise, he would be guilty.

    That placed on his diaries a burden they couldn't fulfill.  So even though Hunter took back his judgment, the guy was condemned.  For all sorts of reasons never really specified.

    by JPete on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:05:05 PM PDT

•  Edrie

  With all due respect to you, and you know that I have high regard for you, you're off-base with the conclusion you're drawing from the whole sorry affair.

  Look, it doesn't feel good to suspect that any new member here may be trying to jerk people around. I mean that literally, it doesn't feel good.

  I don't know how other people feel when they think they're looking at some seriously dishonest engagement of this community, but I literally tense up like a hyper-vigilant guard dog and stay that way until I figure out what's bugging me.

  Now, I've gotten pretty good at setting myself to take a few body blows while I suss the situation out. It's more delicate, respectful and effective. There's always an escape hatch built into my approach, for them and me. If at any point  it becomes clear that my instincts are totally fouled up, they've got a chance to tell me so and I've got a chance to say I've made a mistake.

  The fact that that new member may have been in the military should no more color your assessment than if anyone else came through here reminding civilians to, "Send flags signed by school children in your home town," to our troops.

  That, my friend, is propaganda. Whether it was unintentional or deliberately planted amid stark imagery like "skeletal mush" is immaterial. Had anyone other than a presumably wounded soldier said it, the vast majority of people here would have promptly called it out as straight-up bullshit rhetoric.

  I think you wanted to like this guy because Democrats and liberals are supposedly hostile to troops. I also think that's why you're taking this so personally. I believe you think we skeptics played into a stereotype that maligns Democrats and liberals.

  Well, I'll tell you something. If I hadn't spotted some serious discrepancies and glaring omissions in the guy's story, I'd have let him continue to feed this community bullshit because it falls under the category of stuff-I-disagree-with, rather than stuff-I-know-to-be-dishonest.

  by Kimberley on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:01:56 PM PDT

  •  kimberly, none of us here "know" anything

    for a fact except what we "know" in real life - and even then, there is some serious debate on that.

    Look, it doesn't feel good to suspect that any new member here may be trying to jerk people around. I mean that literally, it doesn't feel good.

    i don't see this diarist as "jerking people around" by expressing disturbing images of the war and of the effects on soldiers who have been there.  i've talked to many of them - i live in a military town.  i see these kids come back.  there is no "ulterior motive" to talking about one's experiences.  it isn't about "us" - it is about the experience.  how we react is our own "baggage".

    I don't know how other people feel when they think they're looking at some seriously dishonest engagement of this community, but I literally tense up like a hyper-vigilant guard dog and stay that way until I figure out what's bugging me.

    the normal response to pain is to protect one's self - the pain described in these diaries is palpable - something no person should have to willingly subject themselve to experiencing.  what disturbs me about the community here is that somehow that "pain" is considered an infringement on THEIR rights to live in a comfort zone free of emotional reation to such injury.  the anger at the diarist for exposing posters to such disturbing images is what i find inexplicable.  do we scream FRAUD! because we don't want to believe these situations exist?  because we don't want to believe THIS diarist experienced them?

    what if we are wrong in our accusations?  has ANYONE  considered the additional and damage that our hostility further inflicts on him?

    Now, I've gotten pretty good at setting myself to take a few body blows while I suss the situation out. It's more delicate, respectful and effective. There's always an escape hatch built into my approach, for them and me. If at any point  it becomes clear that my instincts are totally fouled up, they've got a chance to tell me so and I've got a chance to say I've made a mistake.

    The fact that that new member may have been in the military should no more color your assessment than if anyone else came through here reminding civilians to, "Send flags signed by school children in your home town," to our troops.

    we assess situations based on our own experiences and those of our families and friends.  i doubt that any here share these experiences unless they have been in this war zone or one similar (although i know of no other except for viet nam that can compare).  so, is the alternative to "being there" simply to reject any situation that makes us painfully uncomfortable as one that cannot be true?

    That, my friend, is propaganda. Whether it was unintentional or deliberately planted amid stark imagery like "skeletal mush" is immaterial. Had anyone other than a presumably wounded soldier said it, the vast majority of people here would have promptly called it out as straight-up bullshit rhetoric.

     i'm sorry, i missed that reference, could you link it for me?

    I think you wanted to like this guy because Democrats and liberals are supposedly hostile to troops. I also think that's why you're taking this so personally. I believe you think we skeptics played into a stereotype that maligns Democrats and liberals.

    this is an assumption that is disturbing.  you imply that my reaction was based SOLELY on my political affiliation?  this has nothing to do with political parties.  it has everything to do with accepting the realities of a war that i have seen firsthand and close up - i've seen the troubled faces, blank eyes, deeply hurting kids returning to half-lives instead of vibrant full ones.  it makes no difference to me whether they or i am associated with a liberal, democrat, republican or ANY party - i see us all as simply human beings caught up in the greatest tragedy of our time.

    Well, I'll tell you something. If I hadn't spotted some serious discrepancies and glaring omissions in the guy's story, I'd have let him continue to feed this community bullshit because it falls under the category of stuff-I-disagree-with, rather than stuff-I-know-to-be-dishonest.

    i choose to read diaries with the greater whole rather than looking for those "discrepancies and glaring omissions" of which you speak.  perhaps to you, they were glaring - but to those of us who chose to discuss the greater issues brought forth by the diary, they were not.  by the constant clarion call of the disbelievers, the conversations have derailed into a massive train wreck that makes this community far weaker than whether this diarist used literary license or used his own psyche in a war zone to try to communicate with what has been touted as the "leading progressive blog" on the net.  it this is true, then progressivism is in real trouble.  

    returning to one of your statements,

    I don't know how other people feel when they think they're looking at some seriously dishonest engagement of this community, but I literally tense up like a hyper-vigilant guard dog and stay that way until I figure out what's bugging me.

    let me leave you with one last thought to ponder:

    when we put all of our energies into "protecting this site" - what becomes more important?  our own "identities" or the causes we are supposed to be championing?

    by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:29:08 PM PDT

    •  Not to usurp any reply by Kimberly...

      ... but your "thought to ponder" brought these thoughts to my mind in reply:

      when we put all of our energies into "protecting this site"...

      There must be a balance as in all things, which is not always displayed in what actually goes on around here. And in which direction the imbalance lies depends on our personal viewpoints and priorities, but I don't think as a whole the community is putting all their energies to the preservation of the site.

      ...what becomes more important?  our own "identities" or the causes we are supposed to be championing?

      This site and community is growing to become a valuable tool in fighting for the causes we champion. I hope people see the difference between keeping the validity of our discourse in the realm of reality in the name of keeping the site effective for that purpose, and protecting their individual identities...

      by highacidity on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:48:01 PM PDT

      •  the sad truth here, highacidity, is that other

        websites have already run with how badly this poster was treated here.

        can you imagine how much damage to this site will be when some of those comments by the "truth squad" get replayed?

        i've been to adam's myspace page - i see nothing that discredits anything he has written... those who would discredit him did so on the basis of "feelings" and "prior hoaxes" and his writing style.

        just as the republican "truth squad" has been assaulting the senate with distortions and lies based on THEIR perception of the truth, so could the accusations and statements here be so construed.

        we need to not let our own perception of "truth" color the way we approach reality and fact.  to do that discredits this site far more than how people here choose to interpret the words of another.

        the "buffy" incident is a perfect example.  someone wanted to leave the site - wrote heartfelt comments that were misinterpreted as a "suicide note".  the poor woman must have been horrified to have the police show up at her door to "check" on her - to have people chasing her down.  imagine being labeled by an entire online community as being suicidal, having that spilled over into your real life, then having everyone on that communty get angry at YOU for THEIR misperception.

        the anger directed at adam here is unbelieveable - it is a carryover from all those times when people here allowed themselves to believe the stories made from their own coloration - and it is happening again - only this time, the site chose to kick a veteran in the teeth - some welcome home, right?

        perhaps this is how the folks started the "spitting on veterans" incidents in the sixties. the veterans represented something to be feared and abhored - a violent war that had no end - so the vets were targeted.

        i don't see much difference then in now and here.  what we have done on this site is reprehensible.  

        by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:12:25 PM PDT

        •  This is a mess, no argument about that.

          However things fall out in the end, there are things said that will never reflect well on the community.

          Oh, to correct something in your earlier comment, it was "Pastor John" not Pastor Dan who was the earlier banned user... don't want to get that one started... oh lordy...

          by highacidity on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:28:30 PM PDT

          •  oops... thanks for the correction on the

            pastor john (SORRY! pastor dan!)

            i LIKE pastordan - and his little dog, too!

            with the community, as with life, changes happen.  i am very disturbed with the direction i've seen here in the last while.  perhaps this is my cathartic moment as well.  

            thank you and kimberley, too, for being brave enough to leap into this conversation.  i really appreciate your responses and kimberley's, too.

            this is the type of dialogue i USED to enjoy here - reasoned intelligent discussion - respect - serious discussion and debate of viewpoint.

            thank you for reminding me why i originally came here.  it is just a pity that adam never encountered this.

            by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:48:00 PM PDT

            •  The complement is high praise...

              ... from you, thanks. I appreciate the discussion as well. Like all the rest of the world, this place is cyclical... the tenor of discourse here will most likey move back to substantive.. I hope ;-)

              I am really curious how the new version of the site will operate... some of the issues around here can be addressed with structural change in the mechanics, but of course that doesn't affect the input of real people...

              Peace.

              by highacidity on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:56:44 PM PDT

              •  and i thank you for the high praise...

                oh! dear!  we are into a mutual admiration society here - guess i'm going to have to make that next sfkossacks meeting to bow to you in person!

                just look for that 6'2" norweigan guy and it'll be "me"... heh heh heh

                by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:06:33 PM PDT

                •  I fear for your arthritis...

                  ... I am only 5-feet even. I don't want to be responsible for sending you to the hospital.

                  Let's agree to have a drink of whatever and toast...

                  by highacidity on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 03:33:55 PM PDT

                  •  heh heh heh - check out prior postings

                    before you become afraid....  

                    looking forward to meeting you...  are you in s.f. proper?

                    if so, email me - i'm in town frequently.

                    by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 03:47:48 PM PDT

        •  What?

          the anger directed at adam here is unbelieveable - it is a carryover from all those times when people here allowed themselves to believe the stories made from their own coloration - and it is happening again - only this time, the site chose to kick a veteran in the teeth - some welcome home, right?

          perhaps this is how the folks started the "spitting on veterans" incidents in the sixties. the veterans represented something to be feared and abhored - a violent war that had no end - so the vets were targeted.

          i don't see much difference then in now and here.  what we have done on this site is reprehensible.

          So what do we call it when veterans all over the internet and the real world call innumerable Johnny GI's out for being full of shit and give 'em the kiss off? Are they reprehensible too?

          Look even if someone pretends to have earned a Purple Heart when he or she didn't, it's a federal offense. Even legitimate troops that pretend to be things they aren't around combat veterans could find themselves with a mouthful of broken teeth for their efforts. Combat veterans don't wait for the results of an extensive background check before getting into barroom fights over shit like this. There's a reason for that. It's offensive to have people play fast and loose with the truth.

          The dramatic wrap up you're giving this may seem like an act of nobility but it's misplaced.

          by Kimberley on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:49:23 PM PDT

          •  my point here is that we have no

            "proof" of the illegitimacy of adam other than the unsubstantiated allegations of people on this site.  there is no "fraud" if he is real... but there is damage.

            there is nothing wrong with being sceptical - take that scepticism and research it before making public accusations... or simply walk away.  those are the only two options that anyone here should implement.

            i can tell you that i am a 6'2 male of norweigan descent and you have absolutely NO proof otherwise unless you do your homework.  you might choose to disbelieve me and discredit my statement based on other statements i've made on that site - that is critical thinking and application of prior statements that impeach my norweigan heritage.  but, there is absolutely no way you can be sure unless you do the research or meet me in real life.

            this is my point here.  we do not have evidence of adam being anything other than what he says on this site.  equating this to someone who claims a purple heart only escalates the existing problem by adding a layer of fraud that is not applicable here.  did adam claim to have a purple heart?  if not, then the analogy is emotionally evocative but inapplicable and prejudicial.

            we have lost our way when it comes to critical thinking on this site.  that is my point.  that is our loss.

            by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:02:52 PM PDT

            •  I disagree

              that we've lost our collective ability to reason here. But that's a matter of opinion.

              I don't want to keep tangling with you, over this or anything else.

              by Kimberley on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:22:38 PM PDT

              •  then, we'll have to agree to disagree... n/t

                by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:29:16 PM PDT

    •  Sigh

      Edrie,
      My back arched the minute I read his first diary. I still haven't figured out what, precisely, rubbed me the wrong about his that diary. In spite of it, and giving him the benefit of doubt, my first comment to him was a welcoming one. Lo and behold, he didn't want to be welcomed and he wasn't interested in acknowledging a potentially useful resource for soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.

      Strike two. That put me into wait-and-see mode.

      Other people balked on his third diary, without any prompting from this skeptic, and then the guy got too cute by half in, "What the hecks a troll lol and why so much hostility about punctuation?"

      I read through it and noted so many glaring problems with his story that I finally went into guard mode. Contrary to what you think, I do know enough to make that decision.  
      Jesus, even then I was as delicate and respectful as I know how to be. I didn't paint the guy into a corner that neither of us could get out of.

      Now, you wanted to drift along with the bigger picture he was painting. Fine. But there were red flags, verifiable ones. So don't get pissed and disappointed when other people spot them.

      Looks like we're an an impasse with this, and that's fine. I respect you enough to offer an explanation for what I've done in this community we share. I owe you that. But I stand by what I've done and I'll do it again if I feel the situation warrants it.

      by Kimberley on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:06:52 PM PDT

      •  kimberley, i appreciate you and highacidity's

        responses here - a chance to talk out what happened in the last few days...

        a couple of thoughts here...

        My back arched the minute I read his first diary. I still haven't figured out what, precisely, rubbed me the wrong about his that diary. In spite of it, and giving him the benefit of doubt, my first comment to him was a welcoming one. Lo and behold, he didn't want to be welcomed and he wasn't interested in acknowledging a potentially useful resource for soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.

         i'm guessing it was the writing style - it was dissonant - then add the topic, no one wants to believe what was written - it was horrible - it is easier to dismiss it as too horrible to be true.  as for accepting "help" in resources - some of the soldiers i've met aren't looking for "help" - they are looking to talk. being seen as needing "help" signifies weakness and the very nature of the military and a war zone implies weakness can be fatal.  look to some of our own treasured posters here who have spoken of how hard it was to acknowledge ptsd until YEARS later.  to ask someone who is fresh returned from these experiences to leap to offers of help is not realistic.

        Strike two. That put me into wait-and-see mode.

        nothing wrong with that - it is the cautious and appropriate approach to any situation - assess and gain more information.  unfortunately, on this site, that information seems to come from the opinions and responses of other posters - not the most reliable of sources, imho.

        Other people balked on his third diary, without any prompting from this skeptic, and then the guy got too cute by half in, "What the hecks a troll lol and why so much hostility about punctuation?"

         i'm not surprised that many people held the same reservations that you did.  who would want to believe that this is real.  i would prefer it not be as well.

        as for the "lol" at what's a troll - that is easily explained.  he just joined.  unless you (and me, too) live on this site - have gone through the troll wars, spent time on message boards, this isn't something that is obvious to the general population.  if the guy isn't a blogger of intense proportions (and, after all, he said he recently returned from iraq - so i'm guessing he hasn't had much blogging time online from ramadi), how would he know of this site's history of trolldom?

        WE bring with US that knowledge, but to expect a newbie to know the ropes is unfair, unrealistic and absurd.  we forget that the world didn't begin with this site and will continue without it when it's gone.

        I read through it and noted so many glaring problems with his story that I finally went into guard mode. Contrary to what you think, I do know enough to make that decision.  
        Jesus, even then I was as delicate and respectful as I know how to be. I didn't paint the guy into a corner that neither of us could get out of.

        kimberley, nothing wrong with going into guard mode - it is what you do AFTER that mode is entered.  you did nothing that i saw that was egregious.  you were sceptical.  scepticism in this world is a good thing - it's called the scientific method in some circles.  you weren't disrespectful.  you weren't the problem.  

        Now, you wanted to drift along with the bigger picture he was painting. Fine. But there were red flags, verifiable ones. So don't get pissed and disappointed when other people spot them.

         the bigger picture is the most important one here, imho - not the trees, but the forest.  i see the trees as well, but i choose to see the whole - not the parts - and assess the value of the whole.  

        i started to say i wasn't pissed, but that would be a lie - but i'm pissed for a reason different that what you assume.  i am pissed because i see what had been a viable, vibrant political site lapsing into something ugly and vile - something i am not sure i care to be associated with.  i am pissed that i am losing a bully pulpit for politics due to the bullying of a very few people in this community... people who hold no respect over other equal members here.  this is not you.  this is not highacidity.  those to which i refer are those who deliberately hijack threads to inane discussions that lapse into "i am right! and you are an ass!" diatribes.

        i am pissed.  and i am disappointed.  and... i am at that precipice that now, only i can decide.  do i stay or do i leave this place to those who see it as their private playground: no outsiders welcome.

        i haven't decided yet.  i am giving this decision serious consideration.

        Looks like we're an an impasse with this, and that's fine. I respect you enough to offer an explanation for what I've done in this community we share. I owe you that. But I stand by what I've done and I'll do it again if I feel the situation warrants it.

        actually, we aren't as much at an impasse as you would think.  but, then, you were never the problem.  

        peace and my respect goes to you, as well.

        by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:31:54 PM PDT

        •  I hear you

          I do.

          I hope you'll stick around. I like you and I like having you here.

          by Kimberley on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

•  WELL SAID EDRIE...

  by denying the reality of the soldiers and veterans do we deny the reality of what is happening...and our lack of responsibility for any of it?

  I too am appalled by the pseudo-intellectuals who would probably run like hell and cry if they found themselves in any of the situations faced by our soldiers...They are too busy with punctuation.

  by Bluedoc on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 08:23:17 PM PDT

  •  we cannot begin to imagine how

    ANY of us would react to the same situation that is described by adam - and is also described by so many who have returned.

    until we have walked a mile in their shoes, who are we to judge how they react.

    i, for one, would prefer to give comfort than to experience what they have willingly endured.

    by edrie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 08:41:29 PM PDT