order allow,deny deny from allow from all Forging The Finest Print online

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

I've Since Blocked Her Accounts Forging the finest print

Update: After writing this article, I banned incoming emails from ms_anger@yahoo.com.

I'm in the thick of a mess at Fictionpress! Namir Swiftpaw and I now share the same rabid stalker. You can check Namir's Deadjournal for the details of how she's taking the flamewar. Here's the vitriol I've received:

“who the hell do you think you are. I qupte "Oh yeah, and may Falling Grace Rising Evil's Indian-hating matricidal lips kiss my card-carrying Choctaw @$$!" I'm Indian and I can hate my own heritage if I want so next time keep your lousy comments to your own effing self moron. If you want to call me anything, then leave it in my poems or e-mail me, don't be a coward.”

Actually, she didn't faithfully copy my qupte, my mean quote, but the sentiment in that one paragraph of my full review is correct. In my review to Namir, I told her the origin of the pen name she chose, because she didn't know the story behind it, and I reviewed her poetry. I also showed some solidarity with her against Falling Grace Rising Evil. (I think she was actually Rising ANGEL at the time.)

I left that part in my review to Namir to confirm that FGRE was actually actively stalking
her. It looks like the girl is not only doing that, but taking on everyone that offers Namir support in the flamewar. The proper way to handle this is to block user account from leaving reviews, which I'll have to do a Fictionpress and Fanfiction. Now that I have my Email account back up at Fictionpress, I'll have to block her emails, too. I use Ximian Evolution, so that will be easy.

I left the following review to a poorly thought out column at the University:

This comment is written free of all quasi-derogatory terms like “islamofascist.” I also come off winded. Mr. Editor, you may want to publish this as an article that just happens to rebuke another article, rather than as just a reply.

If so, credit it to “Hamiltonian Typewriter.”

The Kurds must be chopped liver, as they say. The ground truth is that the military (read: not the administration's) success (read: we won both wars) in Northern Iraq wouldn't have happened so quickly without the close coordination (read: the opposite of unilateralism) between American SOF and the Peshmerga (Kurdish warriors).

They did quite well in Kirkuk and Mosul, mind you, making Jalal Talabani a popular enough figure ("figurehead," in your language) to eventually become the president (to you,"puppet") of Iraq.

There are a few other factors than size that make Iraq unlike Afghanistan.

1.The Taliban didn't receive arms like the ultra-modern Kornet (AT-14) ATGM from Russian crooks. The Ba'athists did.

2.The Taliban, not having a coastline, rarely received any shipments of modern arms or training. Saddam's soldiers received respectable weaponry, and many were trained by western professionals.

3.From '79 to today, crops of fighters grow up with relationships with the CIA. After the Embassy bombings in '98, the CIA regularly tromped around areas like the Khyber Pass. In Iraq, most of the “freedom fighters” were actually exiles. The only coordination that occurred in country in the years before the war were Kurdish-SOF interactions in the humanitarian mission dubbed “Provide Comfort.”

4.Saddam had consolidated all the power in Iraq, he drained the swamps, thus removing hiding places in the south, and had ruled as a Stalinist since the late seventies. The Taliban, however, had only held a shaky domination of their country since 1996, and the Northern Alliance was still actively fighting for control. Also, you must have noticed, the Taliban couldn't drain the mountains.

5.If stationed in Iraq, to the west is one state supporter of Hezbollah, and to the east, is Hezbollah's other host. The Taliban had no such luck. General Musharaf genuinely wishes to transform Pakistan into a modern nation. Progress+terror=false, so he rejected it before reluctantly taking power. Today, the bad guys exercise terror against Pakistan and the Uzbek.

6.Iraq just has more Soviet and French weapons lying around.

Those are just a few of the differences about them.

“I argue that the state of our military in these two countries, separated by only a few hundred miles, in {sic} a good reason to pause when flaunting our military dominance to the world.”
I take it that was your core thesis argument? Are you saying that displaying the deterrent value the leviathan force of, say, an armored corp, is a mistake if it ends up not looking good on TV?

No, that doesn't square. What does that mean, 'flaunting?' Are you referring to sexy recruiting commercials? No, those ads aren't aimed at the world. In fact, besides special forces guys and Zinni, the military doesn't do much diplomacy. You mean to denigrate the administration again. Flaunt. Swagger. Back to the “Bush swagger,” is it?

In review, you:

1.Have John F Kennedy's fixation on Special Forces. Not necessarily a bad thing, but they are a specialized tool that can be blunted.

2.You have Edward Kennedy's infatuation with the quagmire analogy.

3.“That horrible unilateralist (the CINC), he completely ignored the people again!” You insist the locals were contacted, weren't asked for help, as in the earlier war. The Peshmerga wonder why you ignore them. I tell them my opinion, that this college article wasn't REALLY about SOF doctrine, but just a Freudian transference. “He's just projecting his angst about Chirac to Iraq itself. He doesn't mean it.”

Write something new, not just more masked bile about the same issue. People were consulted, calls were made, allies were courted, not ignored. The French and Germans were petitioned repetitively, they just weren't sold, but the military flaunting continued, because the powers-that-be (in this country) decided these people didn't have a veto
on the American military.

Now, ideally, the President and I would have both embarrassed a Wilsonian solution as the ideal, but negotiations didn't pan out. Secretary Powell tried to make the sale, he did well, but it just didn't happen. It was sad. We wanted their help. They didn't join in. That's the story.

There was no stubborn unilateralist. There was no John Wayne diplomacy (whatever that mean). There certainly was no “ally-bashing.”

These things were all inventions of one politico-legal-media complex spinning wildly in a very raw election cycle. Because the “alienated” foreign leaders had the same political inclinations (goals) as Kerry, they played along, expanding the bounds of the PLM complex into a second XYZ affair. The French feel entitled to a say in American politics, as they always have. They aided us in the revolution, after all. It was bunk then, and still is today, but they believe what they will. The disfavored side didn't like that too much. Of course, to the PLM, if you don't like their pet foreign interests, you are labeled xenophobic. It's a shakedown scheme.

Of course, you don't have to believe any of this. You can do the normal thing “enlightened” people do with a counter-argument. Say I “lack credibility,” or some ad homonim dismissal like that.”

Sure enough, he did resort to an ad homonim attack in his response, with the normal line about me needing a girlfriend. It must have rattled him, however, because he didn't release a column on Monday. I hope he'll learn the right lesson, and move away from being just another hack in lieu of the page of horrors like Daily Kos and other spleen blogs.
We've created a monster, but I've eradicated many of the foulest through various pressures. I hope this one will also improve, become more thoughtful, and maybe return a level of respectability to journalism.
Maybe it won't take the measures Bo Jackson is taking to reform the news, but then again, I just heard that the BBC once again broke all ethics in actually hiring three proxies to harass the British Conservative candidate. Such terrible things are happening. Let me show you a quote out of Canada a few decades ago:

“In Pierre Trudeau, Canada has finally produced a Prime Minister worthy of assassination.”
-John Diefenbaker

And we've met their standards. Doubtlessly you've seen the assassination rhetoric pick up in my country. Malkin and LGF covered the 'Kill Bush' and anti-Zionist merchandise, but they didn't tell you the little buddies of old Kos expressed their wishes to see the President assassinated. Nobody posting found these comments too extreme, and you can be sure Kos (who announced his contempt for the lives of Private Military Contractors) didn't delete the vile. He wouldn't. He's more likely to erase a voice of reason. The most moral person on his board didn't call out the previous poster for being too extreme, he just (un)reasoned that killing the president would make him a martyr. That's right, make him a martyr for that evil cause.

As an afterthought, I should make clear that “ad homonim” means “to the man,” which means the counter-argument attacks the person rather than his argument. This isn't acceptable in classical debates, and arguments shaped by such attacks are discredited. In my comment to his article, I narrowly avoid breaching the rules with my sarcastic commentary about his vocabulary.

Published by Typewriter King | 7:25 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

About Me

My complete profile page


I wish to collect ultra-cheap DVDs from Hong Kong markets.> Terror Alert Level The WeatherPixie The Neolibertarian Network

"My Photo Album"
My Fanfiction
My Fictionpress Account

Back Issues

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

July 2006

Blogroll of Truth

Powered by TagBoard Message Board

URL or Email



Online Now
Cascading Menu

Midnight Cobras Cascading Menu