reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Thank you my friend, for your considered reply. First, let me state how uncomfortable I am with oxymoronic phrases such as; "agree to disagree",
and I would much rather agree to agree.
Your argument that the ADL is merely pointing out anger, and not claiming it is illegal is fine, however defamation is illegal and I am wondering what
an anti defamation league is doing by pointing to words not illegal? Defamation is wrong. Perhaps it could be argued that Doc defamed a Democratic
Congress, but that would be a tough argument to make in a court of law and just a huge waste of resource. So, to what end does the ADL hope to get at
by publishing this report? How has it become the responsibility of an anti-defamation league to go beyond defamation and into the realm of
It is very interesting to me, that in order to support your contention that Boondock's post was a call to violence you felt compelled to quote a
different post, by a different member, of which you claim was an attempt to call out the internet tough guys:
The thing is Iv learned during my time on this forum is that people tend to talk alot. On a forum it seems to be that they are somehow granted the
commander with the speaker and everybody else must actually do the bidding for them. I tell ya right now that sitting behind a computer screen
insisting or predicting some rebellion day in and day out will not add to action.
This language, quoted above, is what I would call inciting violence. Clearly this poster places no value on talk, so by action, what are we to assume
that poster means? This member speaks directly to rebellion, and insists that prediction of it or even discussing it will not add to action. What is
meant by action? What action other than rebellion could this poster possibly mean?
Contrast that with Boondock's post, and I must respectfully disagree, (though I would much rather we find some way to work towards agreement), and
between the two, the only one who has come close to inciting violence is the very poster you claim is calling the tough guys out. But in calling the
internet tough guys out, it certainly appears as if this member wants to distinguish between internet tough guys and real tough guys.
So to say it was just metaphorical and not his actual feelings, in my opinion, is just trying to defend him after he made some really stupid
Literary lesson number one: Metaphorical use of language does not disguise intent, nor does it disguise emotion, and instead what a metaphor does is
take a figure of speech to imply comparison of two things, usually unlike things, that have something in common. The metaphor of "throwing a brick
thru a window" is unlike Boondock's post in that his words alone will not break any glass, unless of course he is some sort of Diva who can shatter
glass with just his voice, and what this metaphor does is link his outrage to that of throwing bricks through windows. By using such a metaphor we
can surmise that Boondock is really angry.
All I see is people trying to backpeddle on statements they made. We all know that people like to talk tough here on ATS, we all know that calls for
and support of violence is a common everyday thing here on ATS. And now we see them trying to retract and/or modify their statements.
Yes, I have seen plenty of calls for violence in this site. Indeed, this is what is so consternating about the ADL report as they chose to use posts
fairly innocuous in an attempt to illustrate this, when in fact there have been plenty of posts that are far less innocuous in that call. Conversely,
I have also seen plenty of posters, (yourself excluded), that have goaded and baited these people, in what seems to be a clear intent to encourage
them to actually follow through with such calls, and they do so in some disingenuous call for peace. You are not one of those goaders and baiters,
and I believe your call for peace is a genuine one, however there are many in this site who pretend they are with you but not nearly as genuine as
You know what pisses me off...there are many members here on ATS that call these internet tough guys out on their tough talk. Many that speak out
against the violence. But who are the "heroes" of ATS now??? It is the ones that would try to promote violence. It pisses me off that those that try
to talk sense instead of violence get ignored...or worse get labeled as dis-info, gov. employee, or recently in these discussions..."socialist".
Anger is a common emotion for us all, and Jesus upon confronting the money changers was clearly pissed off. Even so, that was a man who called for
peace, and his single most important lesson was compassion. Hero's are not defined by who worships them, they are defined by their actions. The
hero not only accepts responsibility for him/herself, but goes beyond this and accepts responsibility for others, and the actions taken in that regard
are what defines him/her as a hero.
I have been called a disinfo agent myself OutKast, and it is not pleasant, but you know what? In each instance it struck me that those who were
hurling such accusations were merely accusing me of their own crimes, which is a fairly common phenomenon with the guilty.
I still hold to the claim that the ADL report did nothing wrong...ATS does have some angry members that do promote violence regularly. I think ATS
ownership is angry more so because it has given them bad PR that may cause people to stay away from the site then they are about the actual statments.
Because I don't see how you can be angry about the statements...THEY WERE MADE...they didn't alter the quotes at all.
I am not clear what you mean by; "I think ATS ownership is angry more so because it has given them bad PR that may cause people to stay away from the
site then they are about the actual statments.", but if you mean by "statements" those of the ADL then yes I would agree with you that this is part
of the reason the owners of this site are so angry. I do think it goes well beyond a PR issue, and as far as publicity goes, there's an old
"There ain't no such thing as bad publicity"
I suspect both S.O. and Springer know this and that their rage is far more genuine than a concern for the bottom line. However, if this site begins
to loose advertising revenue due to an ambiguous report published by an organization, then that report has caused damage and that damage can be
quantified by the loss of revenue. If this is the case, then the ADL has done something wrong, and it has used its own influence in order to hurt
Bottom line...people need to take responsibility for their actions. And if you get called on it...man up and stand behind your statements...don't try
to cry and complain that you are being "defamed".
Unless, of course, you have been defamed. If you have you should certainly "man up" and confront the defamer and demand they accept responsibility
for their actions.
[edit on 27-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]