From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:22:15 -0500
Subject: [GZG] META strong and objectionable discourse was: Interesting mercenary idea
NOTE subject changed so those that wish to ignore or delete the thread can do so with prejudice. > On Dec 11, 2008, at 12:55 PM, emu2020@comcast.net wrote: > I am not in the UN. And no, I was not personally insulted, however John is in the Army. He's been in combat multiple times. He's killed people. He's seen people killed. He's seen friends killed. He doesn't dress facts up in pretty flowery language to protect people's sensitive nature. He was speaking coldly, and directly. If we had more of that we'd have fewer problems in this world. We're damned lucky to have a combat veteran who has some real world experience who is interested in this hobby and can provide some REAL hard data on what's going on in the real world unfiltered by the BBC or CNN or the AP. 20 years ago, finding someone who'd been in combat who war-gamed was hard. There were one or two ARVN vets I knew but they didn't game nearly as much. We also didn't have list servers then that had nearly as much traffic. Just about everyone who DID game and was in the military had never fired a shot in anger and seen things go pear shaped. > I have stated in my responses to this, that I do not deny or When did this become the sunday school marm bible study? > Your reply seems to indicate a fundimental disregard for what I > Strong and objectionable language is just that, no matter how What was strong and objectionable? Cite the passage please. "Today's UN doesn't have a military either. And when they DO conduct military operations, it is more likely to be with Third World uniformed thugs working for cash and running child prostitution rings on the side than it is to be anything professional. Oh, and even if you do convince First World militaries to contribute, they put some politically correct jackass in charge so the "peacekeepers" are stuck basically videotaping the murders and rapes rather than doing anything productive." Does the word Thug upset you? Perhaps it's Politically Correct Jackass? How would you describe someone who came up with the rules of engagement that allowed 8000 people to be murdered in full view of Dutch Peacekeepers? I can think of some words but they're not as polite. Frankly, that you WANT them to be addressed and described politely has me thinking you need to be given a pep talk by Chopper. PS. John doesn't need me to explain this for him (or more importantly, defend him, he can do that quite well on his own). I do address this though because I'm cognizant of the realities that he's dealt with if not familiar with them. And frankly, your response just annoys the hell out of me. I could elaborate, but that would probably be too strong and objectionable.