| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2004 11:11:11 AM · #1001 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I think that some of you people have some very serious personal issues that should be dealt with in a counseling setting, and not in a public forum such as this. Regardless of political beliefs, alliances, etc., this rant is getting to be out of hand and ridiculous. This is a photography site. The rant forum is to vent about things and then move on. Some obviously cannot move on. If you are at an impasse in your life and cannot deal with trauma post 9-11, I seriously suggest contacting a professional. Blame, fear, suspicion, anxiety, tension, stress...these are all normal feelings after a traumatic event. If they are continuing to a point of paranoia and anger management troubles, seek help. If you feel that you are personally fine and that I am stupid for posting this message, then for goodness' sake, act like it and GROW UP! Constant complaints and bickering between each other will do nothing to solve any problem you can come up with. It stagnates the issues and no change will ever come about because of it. If it makes you feel better to belittle others and rage on and on about inconsistencies in their posts or faulty logic, then see the first line of this message again. Can we all just stop this nonsense? You are all supposed to be adults. Act like it. Express your opinion and move forward. Trying to get someone to see your side of an issue will almost never work when anger is the tool you choose to use. |
You know you can switch off the rant forums, right ? It is an option in your preferences, under the My Home->My Preferences.
Most of the debate is about the invasion of Iraq, rather than post 9/11 traumas though, so not quite sure where you are coming from on the rest of the post
Though, actually, noticing the posting time of this, on the 11th second of the 11th minute of the 11th hour, and as post number 1001, we should probably declare an armistice.
Message edited by author 2004-04-16 11:14:48.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 11:17:19 AM · #1002 |
The invasion of Iraq is directly related to 9/11. There are a lot of people still reeling from the traumatic effects of 9/11, either personally or on other secondary/tertiary levels and the lack of being able to deal with the feelings related to that trauma has caused a lot of issues with thousands, not just those in this forum. I do feel, however, that with so much of the anger boiling up in the posts, that my post is relevant. I choose not to switch the rant forum off because I have concern for those who are still in such obvious distress.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 11:36:21 AM · #1003 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
The invasion of Iraq is directly related to 9/11. |
I think there, you encapsulated a lot of the issues in this thread.
Many see it that it should not be directly related at all and are entirely separate issues, masquerading as related.
The invasion of Afghanistan was certainly directly related to 9/11.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:01:28 PM · #1004 |
And what makes you such an expert that you can determine that the discussion here relates to PTSD secondary to 9/11? Even if you were correct, wouldn't talking about related issues be therapeutic? A councilor would encourage talk as well, unless you are proposing that those taking part in this forum take medication. Is that what you recommend, Dr. Lauriel?
Originally posted by laurielblack:
The invasion of Iraq is directly related to 9/11. There are a lot of people still reeling from the traumatic effects of 9/11, either personally or on other secondary/tertiary levels and the lack of being able to deal with the feelings related to that trauma has caused a lot of issues with thousands, not just those in this forum. I do feel, however, that with so much of the anger boiling up in the posts, that my post is relevant. I choose not to switch the rant forum off because I have concern for those who are still in such obvious distress. |
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:19:00 PM · #1005 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Kerry ( Richard, not John ) seemed to be not so much interested in Dr. Rice's answers as he was in posing his questions ( or, more accurately, accusations disguised as questions ). Pure grandstanding, as far as I'm concerned.
At no time in the past have marshalls NOT removed viewers from a congressional hearing who did not respect the decorum and the serious nature of the hearing. The 9/ll widows were even reprimanded by Kerry, himself, yet they were not removed from the viewing area. It was apparent that they were there for political purposes - and they disgraced the proceedings and themselves by their inability to act with decorum.
Ron |
I agree with you about Bob Kerry. I think he certainly used his allotted questioning period to comment on the current Iraq situation, which seems a tad off topic for the hearings.
On your other point, I think that politics are inextricably woven into these hearings, from start to finish, as unfortunate as that may be, probably in both our opinions. :(
From the administrations efforts to quash it, to their loading of partisans, to their stonewalling, reluctance to release requested documents ( tons of pages released, yes, but not all the crucial ones asked for), to limitations of appearances and time of testimony - all of it is politically based.
Boy oh boy, surviving the droning introductory preambles by the administration members - if those weren't political CYA speeches, I'm not sure what is! :D
Much of the questioning, by both sides of the aisle, was to score political points, not to really get facts determined, as well, I think.
I just can't feel anything but compassion for the "9/11 widows" - the victims families. They are there because they are fighting to get answers from an administration that every one of them will tell you is intent on covering things up. They deserve a whole lot better, I think. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:33:38 PM · #1006 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
bingo baby! |
Dale Woolridge, you are the 1000th post winner!!! Site Councel, please tell our happer user what he has won. Maybe a free years membership? :) |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:45:40 PM · #1007 |
Actually, if it is necessary for me to disclose this, I am a certified counselor with a M.Ed. in Counseling. I do not recommend medication for anyone, as that is not within my realm of professional duties. I am only expressing genuine concern for the people of this forum who have displayed certain characteristics that are consistent with feelings that counseling can address. I am not diagnosing specific problems or issues, nor am I singling any one poster out. I am making a generalization based on information that I have read on the post and my background/training. I did not claim to be a doctor. As far as talking about issues, yes, that is very therapeutic. Rage is not. Thank you for your post.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:51:48 PM · #1008 |
Could you give some examples of angry posts that you believe might be related to PTSD? What would some signs and symptoms be of PTSD that would directly relate to this discussion?
I would also think that the expression of anger, if there really is that here, would be therapeutic as well, given this safe forum.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Actually, if it is necessary for me to disclose this, I am a certified counselor with a M.Ed. in Counseling. I do not recommend medication for anyone, as that is not within my realm of professional duties. I am only expressing genuine concern for the people of this forum who have displayed certain characteristics that are consistent with feelings that counseling can address. I am not diagnosing specific problems or issues, nor am I singling any one poster out. I am making a generalization based on information that I have read on the post and my background/training. I did not claim to be a doctor. As far as talking about issues, yes, that is very therapeutic. Rage is not. Thank you for your post. |
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:54:22 PM · #1009 |
lol, very funny Chris. :)
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
bingo baby! |
Dale Woolridge, you are the 1000th post winner!!! Site Councel, please tell our happer user what he has won. Maybe a free years membership? :) |
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 01:30:58 PM · #1010 |
Many of the posts are of an angry nature, and I never once used the term PTSD, nor any other specific disorder. That is a term provided by those who have misinterpreted my concern. I choose not to enter into a debate about this. I have stated my opinion, and I choose to move on. Thank you for your concern.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 02:04:33 PM · #1011 |
I can't speak for everyone, but let me state MY position very clearly. I have the utmost respect for those with whom I have engaged in dialogue in this forum as well as the other "rant" fora - Olyuzi, GeneralE, Gordon, to name but a few. Certainly I challenge their statements, and they mine, but I have not seen the kind of RAGE that Laurie refers to except by one or two at most who are by no means frequent posters.
I, for one, am glad to read the views of others, whether I agree or disagree with them. They all provide insight into the concerns of other DPC'ers, and are a valuable contribution to my own understanding. I am essentially forced into examining what I believe and, more importantly, why I believe it, in order to respond. My views HAVE been challenged ( though not necessarily changed, lest someone gets their hopes up ).
It has been said that the best way to conquer an enemy is to make them a friend. Though I have never considered those I dialogue with as enemies per se, I do hope that I am not incorrect in thinking that through our discussions, we have become more friend-like - or at least not more enimical. Again, I can't speak for others, but I, myself, would be honored to share a glass of their favorite beverage with any of those I have engaged in dialogue.
I think that perhaps the forum type, "RANT", is somewhat leading. This is dialogue, heated at times, certainly opinionated, but still not RANTing as such.
That, of course, is just MY opinion. Your milage may vary.
Ron
( edited for typos )
Message edited by author 2004-04-16 14:19:37. |
|
|
|
04/16/2004 02:24:22 PM · #1012 |
Largely I recognise that political dialog, particularly on the internet is futile, if by it you plan to change someone's mind.
Mostly I'm doing it because I'm genuinely confused by the attitudes I see from many people in this land I temporarily call home - the simplest way to understand it is to ask.
Starting a political debate at work can be potentially unhealthly, particularly in the heart of Texas - here in this forum, I don't think so - yes I occasionally am slightly deliberately ambiguous in my statements to tweak RonB and others, but purely for the entertainment value and also the increased likelyhood of provoking a more interesting discussion.
I fear that working with people with certain characteristics might overly sensitise you and make you too quick to see the same characteristics as symptomatic of something when that is not necessarily the case.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2004 10:26:38 AM · #1013 |
Just to perk things up:D
The second report from the same source - unimpeachable, of course - the Tehran Times! Nevertheless, sounding quite credible,
that the U.S. is planting WMD in Iraq right now.
//www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0413-02.htm
Message edited by author 2004-04-17 10:27:36. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 12:31:46 PM · #1014 |
| Remember October Surprise! |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 12:44:40 PM · #1015 |
Dave Ross is a seattle-based radio host and commentator for CBS radio. He is recently returned from Iraq. Check out some of his MP3 clips.
Apr 14, 2004
BUSH SPEECH
Freedom wasn't easy for us either. This is Dave Ross ...
The President pointed out last night that despite the bad news from Iraq, you have to remember our own history:
{Audio clip}
And the President is right. Freedom wasn't easy for us.
The first national election in America didn't take place until a year and a half after the Constitution was written. The Constitution itself took four years from the time the war ended.
And the war itself -- took six years from the first shot until the Americans and the French finally surrounded Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. It involved all the things we see in the present war in Iraq. There were ambushes. Raids. Terrorism. Collateral damage.
But the overarching theme of the American Revolution, the story line that every school child is taught, is that it began when a rag tag army of Minutemen went up against the well-equipped and highly-disciplined British Redcoats.
And therein lies the danger in this comparison.
In the current fighting in Iraq, who are the Minutemen, and who are the Redcoats?
The British wanted to hang on to America for her wealth, but the colonists saw themselves being sucked dry, and rebelled. They were poorly trained, but they made up for it by using guerilla tactics. And they had the commitment that comes when you're fighting for your home and your honor.
All I'm asking is -- let's not become the Redcoats, OK?
I will say there is ONE reassuring thing about the analogy: 229 years later, we and the British are best of friends. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 01:00:35 PM · #1016 |
Lauriel… Please do not be so quick to judge the manner of what has been said here in this forum thread. I’m not in agreement with you that its gotten out of hand or is ridiculous. We discuss serious issues that are being debated worldwide and have no easy answers. Rant and then move on, yes, but on whose timetable? Matters such as these take time to sort out and I’m sure that we will all move on when we’ve had enough, though I for one have not reached that place yet.
True, this is a photography-arts web site but within that realm all manner of existence comes under the scrutiny of our “eyes,” including politics and current affairs. What we are really learning here, among other things, is to hone our perceptions for the purpose of translating those perceptions into a photographic vision. Interacting with people from the world over on DPC allows me to stretch and evolve my own perceptions with real people, not just the media pundits and talking heads. Sure, it may get heated at times, but I believe that what you perceive, as anger may also be passion for the issue at hand.
I quiet enjoy hearing from my disputatious comrades/adversaries. Keep in mind that for me, those last two terms do not divide one person into one camp, and another person into the other. I view each person who partakes in these heated arguments as both friend and adversary at the same time. Now RonB doesn’t know this, and please don’t go blabbing this all over the net, but I am most happy to see him online and responding to posts here. This goes for all the other chumps/champs who post here as well. They sharpen my wits, expose me to ideas and opinions that I would not have otherwise had the opportunity to know, make life more interesting in general, and make me stronger for my own beliefs. I have, in fact, been changed by interaction with the people on this thread and have learned a lot. I have changed my manner of response from declarative, matter-of-fact, confrontative statements, to more personal perceptions of what I believe to be true. For this, I have RonB to thank.
I would bet that we’re not really all that different anyway, regardless of our views and opinions. I’m sure we all want the same things for our country and the world…peace, prosperity and health, though we may disagree about the means to that end. Above all else we share our humanity. Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders could do this as well instead of running off to war?!
Maybe I have been too harsh with you so allow me to apologize and extend an invitation to you to rejoin us in our deliberations. Drop in from time to time, or be a fixture…we’re sorely in need of another female’s point-of-view and I would be most happy if you did.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2004 01:07:39 PM · #1017 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would bet that we’re not really all that different anyway, regardless of our views and opinions. I’m sure we all want the same things for our country and the world…peace, prosperity and health, though we may disagree about the means to that end. Above all else we share our humanity. Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders could do this as well instead of running off to war?! |
And here you've identified the basis for the true anarchist's point of view ... that people everywhere just want to raise healthy kids and do some kind of meaningful work, with enough free time to pursue their hobbies. It is the institutions of power -- governmental, religious, and commercial -- and their leaders who create conflict. The idea is NOT to have no rules, just no rulers. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 01:26:20 PM · #1018 |
It's about not having power concentrated in the hands of just a few but shared amongst all people and peoples.
Message edited by author 2004-04-17 13:30:21. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 02:16:51 PM · #1019 |
Well, what do you know...you guys can play nice now and again. I am quite impressed. Really.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2004 01:08:27 PM · #1020 |
Not to be disrespectful, but after listening to Dr. Rice this morning, I have one question for her: Just why is it she never seems to read any of the public affairs books upon which she's called to comment, explain, or refute?
If I were allowed two questions, I'd ask her if she was constitutionally capable of answering a yes/no question either yes or no. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 05:22:34 PM · #1021 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If I were allowed two questions, I'd ask her if she was constitutionally capable of answering a yes/no question either yes or no. |
Given the same constraints, please answer this question:
Is it true that you finally stopped beating your wife and child?
Please confine your answer to either YES or NO. That IS a yes/no question.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 05:54:52 PM · #1022 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If I were allowed two questions, I'd ask her if she was constitutionally capable of answering a yes/no question either yes or no. |
Given the same constraints, please answer this question:
Is it true that you finally stopped beating your wife and child?
Please confine your answer to either YES or NO. That IS a yes/no question.
Ron |
That's a cheap parlor trick unbecoming of an actual debate, and unacceptable in any beginning logic class. Or don't they cover that in the Official Republican Manual of Quick 'N' Dirty Politics?
You are undoubtedly intelligent enough to have understood the context of my question, and must have heard Dr. Rice enough to know that she has been asked many straightforward yes/no questions lacking the liguistic contortions of your example, and that, like you, she has answered at length on completely unrelated topics without ever answering the question.
Or perhaps you avoid listening to her testimony altogether; that way you can comment, while maintaining plausible deniability of her actual wording, thereby leaving yourself an escape route ...
Message edited by author 2004-04-18 17:55:14. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 06:07:28 PM · #1023 |
look at Kerry's yes/no record...that guy is either the most confused person of all time or a complete liar, or most likely just a run of the mill politician like everyone else on both sides
|
|
|
|
04/18/2004 08:18:36 PM · #1024 |
| I'm not defending (either) Mr. Kerry; I am only commenting on Dr. Rice's behavior when called upon to account for her actions. Why is the near-universal response to each of my points an immediate change of subject? |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 08:20:13 PM · #1025 |
Originally posted by achiral:
look at Kerry's yes/no record...that guy is either the most confused person of all time or a complete liar, or most likely just a run of the mill politician like everyone else on both sides |
... and into which of these categories do you place Dr. Rice? |
|
