New info into confusion in Bush military record

09/10/2004 02:32:59 PM · #101

Hmmm. I was just looking at the profiles of those who post the most to the Rant political threads and have seen a pattern emerge. I wonder if anyone else has noticed it. Look at the following list -

Username : ProfileName

bdobe : W R
frychikn : John Vicek
graphicfunk : Daniel Cuesta
jab119 : James Benton
jmritz : John Modricker
louddog : Daryl F
MadMordegon : Mad Mordegon
midnightride2 : Gene Vaught
Olyuzi : Olyuzi Aurzahav ( not his real name )
RonB : Ron Burr
ScottK : Scott Kelly
Spazmo99 : Dan Selvidge
thelsel : Tom Helsel
Trinch : Paolo Trinchieri
vrtruan : Van Truan

See the pattern?

It seems that most of the pro-Kerry, anti-Bush posters don't put their names in their profiles, while most of the others do. I wonder why that is?

09/10/2004 02:42:12 PM · #102

Originally posted by RonB:

***Not sure what this has to do with anything about this thread, but I view this as just another attempt at a diversionary tactic when you don't want to deal with the issues.

What do you think the significance of it is?

09/10/2004 02:44:06 PM · #103

Originally posted by RonB:

***Anyway, how do I know that Ron Burr is your real name? Could be made up too.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/10/2004 02:44:52 PM · #104

Interesting read. Thanks for posting an answer to my question and not a lecture on the media.

I'm not familier with that web site and I don't know who "Hunter" is, it will be interesting to see how this issue pans out.

I find it odd though, that you would make a big issue of others using a "conservative" web site as a source of information, then you quote information from a guy that won't put his real name on a story and has no information about himself available. Based on his other entries on that site, I'd have to say he seems to be leaning to the left a little. I did enjoy his Funky Bush Rap though...

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/10/2004 02:52:15 PM · #105

The answer is simple, and obvious: privacy.

Why would I want to provide, what I consider to be, relatively sensitive information (i.e., name), on such a public forum. One constantly hears about ID theft related crimes and, after having such an experience occur to me, I'm more careful now. That's all. If anyone is interested in contacting me directly, there's the private message feature, which I'm glad to say, some of you have opted to use to contact me.

There's another pattern, by the way: we're all men. I wish some women would join, it would offer a greater diversity of opinions.

.......................................

Originally posted by RonB:

09/10/2004 02:58:07 PM · #106

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm. I was just looking at the profiles of those who post the most to the Rant political threads and have seen a pattern emerge. I wonder if anyone else has noticed it. Look at the following list -

Username : ProfileName

bdobe : W R
frychikn : John Vicek
graphicfunk : Daniel Cuesta
jab119 : James Benton
jmritz : John Modricker
louddog : Daryl F
MadMordegon : Mad Mordegon
midnightride2 : Gene Vaught
Olyuzi : Olyuzi Aurzahav ( not his real name )
RonB : Ron Burr
ScottK : Scott Kelly
Spazmo99 : Dan Selvidge
thelsel : Tom Helsel
Trinch : Paolo Trinchieri
vrtruan : Van Truan

See the pattern?

It seems that most of the pro-Kerry, anti-Bush posters don't put their names in their profiles, while most of the others do. I wonder why that is?

***Not sure what this has to do with anything about this thread, but I view this as just another attempt at a diversionary tactic when you don't want to deal with the issues.

What do you think the significance of it is?

I'll let the scientific community respond. Their view mirrors my own.

"Because there is little chance of FTF ( face to face ) meetings among online discussants, CMC ( computer-mediated communication ) also fosters direct and self-disclosing behaviors. Individuals realize that they can speak their minds with impunity because there is very little chance of anyone ever linking them with their statements. While this can lead to inflammatory statements, it also means that online discussants can behave and speak in ways that they desire but are unable to in FTF interactions because that would put their professional and/or personal statuses at stake."

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/10/2004 03:07:47 PM · #107

LoudDog,

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but many of us on the left feel that the mainstream media essentially fails to inform the public. Accordingly, like conservatives have already done, we're creating and tapping into alternative sources of information. A couple of points: 1. Note that the author conducted first-hand research and provides references to support his thesis; 2. Note that the "TH" story bubbled up quite rapidly from right-leaning media outlets into the mainstream, or the so-called liberal media; 3. Now, let's see how long it takes to, one, present the right-leaning bias of the sources behind the "TH" story and, two, let's see how much cover the so-called liberal media provides to the "authentication" of the memos.

As for my lecture, without you knowing where I'm coming from, what I presented as the Republican Noise Machine model would not make sense. Moreover, most people, like you, are absolutely convinced that the media has a liberal bias, and simply accept this as gospel. Now, I can't change your mind, but you should at least be informed on your opposition's point of view. As the adage says, Know thy enemy.

Again, as I noted in previous posts, as consumers of information, nowadays, we have to do independent fact-checking; because the mainstream media misinforms, rather than informs. Again, it does take a lot work, but it's just the responsible thing to do.

.......................................

Originally posted by louddog:

09/10/2004 03:08:32 PM · #108

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm. I was just looking at the profiles of those who post the most to the Rant political threads and have seen a pattern emerge. I wonder if anyone else has noticed it. Look at the following list -

Username : ProfileName

bdobe : W R
frychikn : John Vicek
graphicfunk : Daniel Cuesta
jab119 : James Benton
jmritz : John Modricker
louddog : Daryl F
MadMordegon : Mad Mordegon
midnightride2 : Gene Vaught
Olyuzi : Olyuzi Aurzahav ( not his real name )
RonB : Ron Burr
ScottK : Scott Kelly
Spazmo99 : Dan Selvidge
thelsel : Tom Helsel
Trinch : Paolo Trinchieri
vrtruan : Van Truan

See the pattern?

It seems that most of the pro-Kerry, anti-Bush posters don't put their names in their profiles, while most of the others do. I wonder why that is?

***Not sure what this has to do with anything about this thread, but I view this as just another attempt at a diversionary tactic when you don't want to deal with the issues.

What do you think the significance of it is?

I'll let the scientific community respond. Their view mirrors my own.

"Because there is little chance of FTF ( face to face ) meetings among online discussants, CMC ( computer-mediated communication ) also fosters direct and self-disclosing behaviors. Individuals realize that they can speak their minds with impunity because there is very little chance of anyone ever linking them with their statements. While this can lead to inflammatory statements, it also means that online discussants can behave and speak in ways that they desire but are unable to in FTF interactions because that would put their professional and/or personal statuses at stake."

***Ok, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I would think it's a good thing since it promotes honest communication of views where nothing is held back.

09/10/2004 03:22:49 PM · #109

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Ok, Ron...I'll concede. Leslie Cagan is a socialist. If you go to the UFPJ web site though, their unity statment says they are a coalition of over 840 groups with various idealogies, but with one firm goal in mind. That is to oppose the war agenda and militarism of the Bush administration and promote peace and justice. I never saw anything that said anything about promoting communist or socialist idealogy. So she may be a great organizer, but I don't see where you can even jump to the remote conclusion in your last couple of statements above, that because she's working so hard for them that the organization on the whole supports her socialist/communist idealogy. I think that's a big stretch, if you ask me.

Because if I DIDN'T jump to that conclusion, I would have to believe that the UFPJ, and their 800+ groups, were blind to the fact that she was a socialist when they gave her the position, and were, therefore, blind to the fact that she is USING them to further her agenda.

***Please prove to me that she is "using them to further her agenda." Where in the UFPJ web site does it say anything about communist/socialist idealogies?

What I find so curious is you're so quick to denigrate someone who has worked so long and hard for peace and justice with so many different issues over so many years. Regardless of her economics, she is not promoting killing or destruction or placing limitations on liberty, as say the Bushites are.

First, I did not denigrate her. Quite the opposite. I gave UFPJ the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they knew who she was, and what her political leanings were, when the appointed her. By doing that I AVOIDED coming to the conclusion that WOULD have denigrated her.
Second, I never even intimated that she was promoting killing or destruction as you seem to imply I did. I don't even know why that particular subject was even included in your post.
Third, I am what you might call a "Bushite" and I do not promote killing or destruction - so I resent your implication that I do.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So then my only conclusion from this is that you, and the rest of the conservatives/republicans are really just fearful of economics that she espouses...

While I wouldn't use the term "JUST", I do admit that I am fearful of the economics that she espouses.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

...and that it is THIS that you are most apt to defend. For you and others of your ilk, it has nothing to do with democracy, liberty, homeland security or human rights...

1) I support our Democratic Republic form of government, but I do NOT support a purely Democratic form of government. Democracy ends when the majority of people find that they can use the power of the vote to enrich themselves from the government's treasury.
2) I support liberty - the liberty to work without having the government force me to share the results of MY labor with those who are unwilling to labor for THEIR share.
3) I support homeland security - since I am not a law-breaker, I have no problem at all with any kind of surveillance by government agencies.
4) I support human rights - if I were President, I would have escalated the Darfur problems months ago.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

...but rather defending the way money is made in this country and the allocation and distribution of resources...

Not a RATHER, but very true - I do oppose the redistribution of wealth using the force of government.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

...and the accumualtion of power in the hands of the few.

Nah. I don't believe in that.

Ron.

09/10/2004 03:28:09 PM · #110

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm. I was just looking at the profiles of those who post the most to the Rant political threads and have seen a pattern emerge. I wonder if anyone else has noticed it. Look at the following list -

Username : ProfileName

bdobe : W R
frychikn : John Vicek
graphicfunk : Daniel Cuesta
jab119 : James Benton
jmritz : John Modricker
louddog : Daryl F
MadMordegon : Mad Mordegon
midnightride2 : Gene Vaught
Olyuzi : Olyuzi Aurzahav ( not his real name )
RonB : Ron Burr
ScottK : Scott Kelly
Spazmo99 : Dan Selvidge
thelsel : Tom Helsel
Trinch : Paolo Trinchieri
vrtruan : Van Truan

See the pattern?

It seems that most of the pro-Kerry, anti-Bush posters don't put their names in their profiles, while most of the others do. I wonder why that is?

***Not sure what this has to do with anything about this thread, but I view this as just another attempt at a diversionary tactic when you don't want to deal with the issues.

What do you think the significance of it is?

I'll let the scientific community respond. Their view mirrors my own.

"Because there is little chance of FTF ( face to face ) meetings among online discussants, CMC ( computer-mediated communication ) also fosters direct and self-disclosing behaviors. Individuals realize that they can speak their minds with impunity because there is very little chance of anyone ever linking them with their statements. While this can lead to inflammatory statements, it also means that online discussants can behave and speak in ways that they desire but are unable to in FTF interactions because that would put their professional and/or personal statuses at stake."

***Ok, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I would think it's a good thing since it promotes honest communication of views where nothing is held back.

It could be. It could also promote DIShonest communication. Without implication of any kind, it's anonymity that enables pedophiles to lurk in Chat rooms and prey upon individuals while "hiding" behind their ScreenNames. I'm just saying that anonymity might encourage people to say things that they might not say if they were NOT anonymous.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/10/2004 03:47:22 PM · #111

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***Ok, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I would think it's a good thing since it promotes honest communication of views where nothing is held back.

How could it promote "honest" communication when the starting point for the dialog (the self-identification of those communicating) is a fabrication, obfuscation, or maybe an outright lie? What's honest about that?

Ron (and I feel I can, with confidence, address you as Ron :) ), I had noticed that myself, and debated bringing it up before. I'm glad you decided to.

09/10/2004 03:49:20 PM · #112

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Ok, Ron...I'll concede. Leslie Cagan is a socialist. If you go to the UFPJ web site though, their unity statment says they are a coalition of over 840 groups with various idealogies, but with one firm goal in mind. That is to oppose the war agenda and militarism of the Bush administration and promote peace and justice. I never saw anything that said anything about promoting communist or socialist idealogy. So she may be a great organizer, but I don't see where you can even jump to the remote conclusion in your last couple of statements above, that because she's working so hard for them that the organization on the whole supports her socialist/communist idealogy. I think that's a big stretch, if you ask me.

Because if I DIDN'T jump to that conclusion, I would have to believe that the UFPJ, and their 800+ groups, were blind to the fact that she was a socialist when they gave her the position, and were, therefore, blind to the fact that she is USING them to further her agenda.

***Please prove to me that she is "using them to further her agenda." Where in the UFPJ web site does it say anything about communist/socialist idealogies?

What I find so curious is you're so quick to denigrate someone who has worked so long and hard for peace and justice with so many different issues over so many years. Regardless of her economics, she is not promoting killing or destruction or placing limitations on liberty, as say the Bushites are.

First, I did not denigrate her. Quite the opposite. I gave UFPJ the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they knew who she was, and what her political leanings were, when the appointed her. By doing that I AVOIDED coming to the conclusion that WOULD have denigrated her.
Second, I never even intimated that she was promoting killing or destruction as you seem to imply I did. I don't even know why that particular subject was even included in your post.
Third, I am what you might call a "Bushite" and I do not promote killing or destruction - so I resent your implication that I do.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then my only conclusion from this is that you, and the rest of the conservatives/republicans are really just fearful of economics that she espouses...

While I wouldn't use the term "JUST", I do admit that I am fearful of the economics that she espouses.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...and that it is THIS that you are most apt to defend. For you and others of your ilk, it has nothing to do with democracy, liberty, homeland security or human rights...

1) I support our Democratic Republic form of government, but I do NOT support a purely Democratic form of government. Democracy ends when the majority of people find that they can use the power of the vote to enrich themselves from the government's treasury.
2) I support liberty - the liberty to work without having the government force me to share the results of MY labor with those who are unwilling to labor for THEIR share.
3) I support homeland security - since I am not a law-breaker, I have no problem at all with any kind of surveillance by government agencies.
4) I support human rights - if I were President, I would have escalated the Darfur problems months ago.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...but rather defending the way money is made in this country and the allocation and distribution of resources...

Not a RATHER, but very true - I do oppose the redistribution of wealth using the force of government.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...and the accumualtion of power in the hands of the few.

Nah. I don't believe in that.

Ron.

***I did not say that you think that Leslie Cagan supports killing and destruction, but that you would rather bring up issues of her economics, and not the good work that she's done to promote peace and justice around the world. On the other hand, you support the Bush agenda wholeheartedly, which seems to be perpetual war. I just find that curious. I did not mean to imply that you personally support killing and destruction. Apologies if you took it that way.

Still, you have not shown how Leslie Cagan is promoting her economic idealogies through her work with United for Peace and Justice.

Message edited by author 2004-09-10 15:52:10.

09/10/2004 03:53:55 PM · #113

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Ok, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I would think it's a good thing since it promotes honest communication of views where nothing is held back.

How could it promote "honest" communication when the starting point for the dialog (the self-identification of those communicating) is a fabrication, obfuscation, or maybe an outright lie? What's honest about that?

Ron (and I feel I can, with confidence, address you as Ron :) ), I had noticed that myself, and debated bringing it up before. I'm glad you decided to.

But how do I know that you are actually Scott Kelly and that's not some sort of alias?

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/10/2004 03:57:20 PM · #114

Originally posted by bdobe:

So are you saying it's okay to believe this Hunter guy? I checked some of his references, and I bet someone that knows more about typwriters then us can blow some holes in his research. I still say it's all fishy. The family of Killian is wondering how CBS got his personal files and say he wasn't a record keeping typwriter using kind of guy. I realize that doesn't mean much, but it all smells like fish to me. CBS has some explaining to do.
I realize the media does not always get it right. I've been on the inside of several stories and seen how accurate they are.

09/10/2004 04:11:54 PM · #115

Originally posted by ScottK:

***All you have to deal with Scott (that is your name, right?), are the issues discussed and not the identities behind the arguments.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/10/2004 06:40:10 PM · #116

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Ok, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I would think it's a good thing since it promotes honest communication of views where nothing is held back.

How could it promote "honest" communication when the starting point for the dialog (the self-identification of those communicating) is a fabrication, obfuscation, or maybe an outright lie? What's honest about that?

Ron (and I feel I can, with confidence, address you as Ron :) ), I had noticed that myself, and debated bringing it up before. I'm glad you decided to.

But how do I know that you are actually Scott Kelly and that's not some sort of alias?

Ask Drew or Langdon. I signed up using my credit card with my full name. I've got nothing to hide. How about you? :)

Or, if you'd like, we can meet and I'll show you my drivers license. Oh wait, you live in New York. Or do you....? ;)

emorgan49

Olympus E-5

Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MF Normal Zuiko

09/10/2004 10:10:34 PM · #117

I guess everyone is confused.

09/10/2004 10:21:04 PM · #118

From a story by Pete Slover in the Dallas Morning News:

"The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Bush's service, was dated Aug. 18, 1973."

More confusion.

ScottK