And what is funny they both joined FR a long time ago, and hence are using that fact as the basis for their 'wisdom' .....in that they are some sort of FR veterans or something (one tried to tell me how he partook in the Clinton Impeachment debate on FR). To that my answer is: so bloody what! Of all the answers i got theirs were the most asinine since instead of answering questions they are telling me about their lil' debates on FR years ago.
And as for their 'warwounds' and time on FR i think that is the most hilarious facet about them. The majority of freepers (actually all) who answered me comprehensively were relative newbies, yet these two guys had been on FR for years and could not even compose a cohesive sentence without trying to impart useless info like how long they have been debating on Clinton's impeachment. Let me say if they are spokespeople for 'time spent on FR equals wisdom' they seriously failed since of all the replies theirs was not onyl acerbic but asinine. Hence in this particualr case i would say age on FR may equal experience, but definitely not wisdom or the ability to answer a question and stick to the parameters.
Ay caramba, i think some folks just go picking fights for no use VaB.
And although i am not afraid of getting into heated debate i am not going to waste my time with such folk over a thread topic that is still up in the air. Once i know the facts then tha is another story, but as far as i am concerned this is a thread that seems to have something in it (for example there is some sort of coverup), but the what is still an unknown factor. for all intents and purposes this is very similar to the Kennedy assasination brouhaha in that there seems to be a kernel of doubt with circumstancial evidence and witnesses, but as of yet no official word saying something did happen. This is not to say the Iraqis were not connected with OKC (chances are they might actually have played a hand) ....however i refuse to engage in silly jousting with Freepers who think their age on FR somehow makes them supreme sages or something like that (and yet the way they answer shows otherwise).
When it comes to argumentative debate I would rather stick to familiar territory eg Sukhois (lol).
Here's the problem as I see it...
You have a subject that may or may not be credible....OKC linked to Saddam...
You have honest people who watch from a distance and wait for the case to be made and for obvious questions to be answered.
The problem is the "contrarianites".
Not exclusive to the OKC Saddam link...the Contrarianites flow to anything with a hint of backroom machination or conspiracy.
They come with alot of bluster and passion but when you ask legitimate questions...they percieve the questions as attacks on their identity [which they have firmly rooted in contrarianism]. When you ask for links to stories or sources of information [like any reasonable person does] you are immediately indentified as another dupe or member of the Worldwide Whatever Conspiracy Of The Week.
I read this article....pinged some people to it because I really think it is interesting...and I was immediately accosted by another poster who has had several threads pulled [relating to this subject] because he doesnt provide links to the stories when he posts them. Of course his threads being pulled have nothing to do with his inability to follow simple posting guidelines...no...Jim Robinson is on the Federal Government take [sense the Contrarianism creeping in?].
If I ask a question about a source or link, I too am a member of the kool aid crowd. If you raise legitimate questions, you too are a member of the kool aid crowd. Questioning their questioning is not tolerated. There is only one layer of questions allowed on a particular subject....after that anyone posing questions is a member of the CFR & Worldbank.
So...if that is the route they take, I go with'em. Yeah it destroys a thread but eventually they'll figure it out and stop attacking people for asking questions. It is almost exactly like the situation that arose with the "5" being posted. Everytime you backed the President's play...you got personally attacked....so we started dropping "5" on every thread the Contrarianites came up with...they originally chose to attack everyone who supported going to War with Iraq so we started mocking them with the #5...they got very pissed about it, ranted and raved, went to other sites and complained...but you see they changed their ways didnt they?
...it is unfortunate but it is how it has to be with Contrarianites.
They are like Liberals in how they operate and orientate themselves with others...you have to completely destroy what they are trying to build before they stop and consider their own actions. It'll get rough but dont stop...they will quit.
I saw your [Spetznaz] questions...they are legitimate. What happened? You got attacked.
This is how they operate. I choose not to play their game...when they attack, mock them.
Mock them again and again until they puke and scream for someone to come along and do something about it. Mock them when it is unsolicited. Mock them everytime you see one of their posts.
That is the only way to orientate yourself towards these people. They will figure it out...and maybe in a month or year or two we can all have decent conversations again.
Sad but true.
LOL
For the record, my first post to you was # 97 on this thread, in response to your #83. It was neither impolite nor silly.
Further, I do not care when you signed up on FR, and will not care when you depart.
IMO, you are either genuine and way too sensitive, or a troll.
Addios
PS - Netiquet dicates that when ranting on for several paragraphs about a poster, you cc the poster you are deriding.
PPS - Who are you calling fella? Making some assumptions are we? I'll bet we've never met.