[iltos]

Originally Posted by iltos

this thread serves a purpose for mulder....whether that's a useful thing in CD is itself open to debate

Originally Posted by Stoner

LOL!
We are after all, discussing Mulder

yup...CD's very own version of the truman show.
actually, in mulder's case, it's more like "hotel california"

[Ciberblade]

IMO:


From an aspect of remembering those that have passed, I understand why they should be referenced. However, what I see as most telling in this case specifically is that only those soldiers lost in this war with Iraq are being counted -- yet no mention of those honorable men and women who have given their lives in Darfur. This suggests that the motivation is political in nature...and has little to do with the soldiers themselves...making it a means to send a message.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I'm pretty sure Mulder would be pleased to see poochee's thread closed.

No--I wouldn't actually--its my main thread here now. For Sarge's sake, I wouldn't tolerate my loss of entertainment and my liberal eye-poker thread!

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

No--I wouldn't actually--its my main thread here now. For Sarge's sake, I wouldn't tolerate my loss of entertainment and my liberal eye-poker thread!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

You can see the liberals absolutely despise having the estimated number of lives saved counted on a regular basis--makes them irate!!!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

IMO:


From an aspect of remembering those that have passed, I understand why they should be referenced. However, what I see as most telling in this case specifically is that only those soldiers lost in this war with Iraq are being counted -- yet no mention of those honorable men and women who have given their lives in Darfur. This suggests that the motivation is political in nature...and has little to do with the soldiers themselves...making it a means to send a message.

Post of the Year!

I should start another thread entitled: "Probability of Poochee continuing the Dead Thread if a Democrat is elected President" with the choices:

Slim
None

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

You can see the liberals absolutely despise having the estimated number of lives saved counted on a regular basis--makes them irate!!!

You can see that the neo-cons want to avoid at all costs dealing with the number of Iraqi lives lost since the invasion and the destabilization of the government. Come on Mulder, I have been waiting for you to post the statistics?

[Gabriel]

I dislike all of the war threads equally. Has nothing to do with the personalities that put them there, or the agenda that goes with it.
Doesn't make me right....in fact I acknowledge my reactive view as nonproductive as far as views go.
The only thing I see 'marching on in them is death. Unfinished life.
That is not something that will dissolve into understanding and will certainly never gain acceptance in my heart.
I am sure there are a lot of people that see it that way, that just shut up about it, as there is no way to express horror short of going mad.

[Blackmirror]

Its all about your politics .. i will never understand it ...

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

IMO:


From an aspect of remembering those that have passed, I understand why they should be referenced. However, what I see as most telling in this case specifically is that only those soldiers lost in this war with Iraq are being counted -- yet no mention of those honorable men and women who have given their lives in Darfur. This suggests that the motivation is political in nature...and has little to do with the soldiers themselves...making it a means to send a message.

Title of subject thread is: "Iraq Coalition Casuality and Fatality Chart". The DoD link I post with death & casualty update includes Iraq and Afghanistan operations. I wasn't aware we had troops deployed in Darfur nor did I find any reference to casualties in Darfur at the DoD site.

Is it political? Absolutely. Disrespectful? Not in my opinion. Is it sending a message?? I certainly hope so.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by Wino

Title of subject thread is: "Iraq Coalition Casuality and Fatality Chart". The DoD link I post with death & casualty update includes Iraq and Afghanistan operations. I wasn't aware we had troops deployed in Darfur nor did I find any reference to casualties in Darfur at the DoD site.

Is it political? Absolutely. Disrespectful? Not in my opinion. Is it sending a message?? I certainly hope so.

Yeah....Darfur, unfortunately gets little press. Probably doesn't have the appeal as the ever-so controversial war in Iraq. You might be interested in it and what the U.N. is trying to do -- and yes, we have troops there

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by Stoner

You just don't like the poll, bomb. It puts the issue of death counts out front and represents what the forum thinks. The discussion in poochee's thread represented confrontations between individuals for the most part.

With respect ... that's complete bollocks. To suggest that the issue of death counts is somehow not out front in poochee's thread is laughable. There's representation of what (forum) members (who feel sufficiently strongly either way to comment) think about the issue a'plenty in poochee's thread.

You just like the poll, Jack.

Nevertheless, following on from your suggestion to not vote for the second option ... the actual question from which all the options flow is, "Do You Believe a Thread that Counts our Dead Soldiers Serves any Useful Purpose?". The OP wrote (and I understand why) "our dead soldiers". Can you not see the assumption that makes? Thus a possible answer to the question is "since there's more than one side in the war, it depends who you mean by 'you'".

HTH

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

With respect ... that's complete bollocks. To suggest that the issue of death counts is somehow not out front in poochee's thread is laughable. There's representation of what (forum) members (who feel sufficiently strongly either way to comment) think about the issue a'plenty in poochee's thread.

You just like the poll, Jack.

Nevertheless, following on from your suggestion to not vote for the second option ... the actual question from which all the options flow is, "Do You Believe a Thread that Counts our Dead Soldiers Serves any Useful Purpose?". The OP wrote (and I understand why) "our dead soldiers". Can you not see the assumption that makes? Thus a possible answer to the question is "since there's more than one side in the war, it depends who you mean by 'you'".

HTH

To suggest that the issue of death counts is somehow not out front in poochee's thread is laughable.

More issues with logic, I see.
Well, at least you are consistent with it

excerpt from my post:

The discussion in poochee's thread represented confrontations..........

Some how you disagreed with that, and yet as far as discussions go in poochee's thread, on one hand there is copy and paste of statistics, and on the other hand there are confrontations between individuals about the message those copy and pastes represent.
I now realize that confuses you.


But you adderd this:

There's representation of what (forum) members (who feel sufficiently strongly either way to comment) think about the issue a'plenty in poochee's thread.

With respect, I presume your post is merely BS?

You just like the poll, Jack.

I'm obviously not crying about it
But then I found an option I could agree with

the actual question from which all the options flow is, "Do You Believe a Thread that Counts our Dead Soldiers Serves any Useful Purpose?".

Yes, I caught that.

The OP wrote (and I understand why) "our dead soldiers".

Well, it's not about someone else's dead soldiers.
Rather specific, don't you think?

Can you not see the assumption that makes?

No.....I thought it specific.
'Our' being the soldiers of the US.
Did that pronoun confuse you?
You thought the context was of some other nation other than the US?
bomb........that is just so sad.........

Thus a possible answer to the question is "since there's more than one side in the war, it depends who you mean by 'you'".

I think you are confused

[Mulderator]

So far 5 "Dead Counting Ghouls" voted. My guess:

Linsky
poochee
Wino
basset

for sure are 4 of them.

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by Stoner

More issues with logic, I see.

In what way, exactly?

What it boils down to, Jack, is what I previously highlighted:

Originally Posted by Stoner

There was no focus.....no poll or mechanism to represent how the forum feels about daily death counts before this poll was posted.

From poochee's thread:

"I fail to see how it is disrepectful to simply keep tabs on how many US men have died in Iraq" (LauraMJ)

"I do appreciate this thread as it reminds me." (Rep)

"how is it disrespecting (the dead) to note the deaths?" (iltos)

"I feel strongly about the disrepect shown in this thread. I've got family members in the military." (Mulder)

"I feel this thread is disrespectful." (ckphilli)

"I DO NOT WANT MY BODY COUNT NUMBER POSTED HERE. Due this out of respect for me. This thread was started under good intentions but is a bad idea!" (Sarge).

There you go -- 3 from either "side", picked pretty much at random. How much proof do you need that poochee's thread was serving as a mechanism to represent how the forum feels about daily death counts before this poll was posted?

If I didn't think this thread was superfluous, I'd be tempted to suggest another poll option:

"Q: Do You Believe a Thread that Counts our Dead Soldiers Serves any Useful Purpose?"

"A: Yes. Take poochee's thread for example; whatever her initial intentions, it's become a mechanism for forum members to express their feelings about daily death counts."