Journal cyranoVR's Journal: Amazing 9
GMontag managed to write a reasonably coherent journal entry about the Bush National Guard controversy that didn't use the words "idiot," "liberal," "terrorist," "traitor" or "hottest chick on the planet."
Maybe there's hope for this "guy" after all? I'm just an optimist, I guess.
You've got to laugh... (Score:2)
Anyone else find it ironic that a guy who takes his Slashdot name from a book about the dangers of censorship doesn't want people he doesn't like replying to his journal? It cracks me up, that's for sure.
Anyhow, what I took umbrage at was the John Kerry-related question that bryanthompson [slashdot.org] brought up: "How can you throw your medals away, then cl
The irony (Score:1)
Also, it's fine if he doesn't want to glorify his service. So I'm guessing he'll stop starting every sentence with, "Well, you know, I served in Viet Name...".
For a dude who doesn't want credit, he sure does bring it up an awful lot.
And then after questioning Bush's service (fair game) he doesn't want his service to be questioned or old issues raised.
Makes you wonder what's on his dossier. David Brinkley, who'
Re:The irony (Score:2)
[Isn't it funny how when people talk about Bush's service record, the conversation inevitably turns back to Kerry?]
I wasn't there, but I think a lot of people said a lot of goofy things back in the 60s. Didn't Reagan, while running for governor of California (or whatever), say something like "I'd have a bloodbath [to deal with anti-
Re:The irony (Score:1)
This is neither valid nor true. Sorry.
And yes, if you're going to bring up Bush's record, than the question typically comes back to what the accuser's position is. As the nominee of the democrats, Kerry is responsible for McAuliffe et al. Sad, but true.
Re:The irony (Score:2)
Let me rephrase that: "All wars have soldiers that commit attrocities on both sides."
War is Hell.
No Foes journals (Score:1)
No. I always use "No Foes" in my journals too. It's about keeping out noise and crap, not dissent or disagreement. And it's not censorship, either. Everyone, whether a foe or not, can still write journals of their own.
There's a difference between burning everyone's books, and telling people they're not allowed to write in the margin
Re:No Foes journals (Score:2)
I think that if you're going to be such a strong advocate of freedom of speech that you make it part of your identity then you're being hypocritical if you refuse to extend that freedom to others when you offer your own opinions.
It's worth reminding everyone that it's not as if GMontag's JE's are about wishy washy stuff. He writes almost exclusively about politics, and the politics of th
Re:No Foes journals (Score:2)
First of all, the problem I have always had with GMontag is his immature, self-rightous attitude and his arrogant, spiteful tone. Some of my best friends are Conservatives.
Anyway, "Guy" clearly sets his journal to no foes because he doesn't want to hear from ANYBODY that offers a thoughful, well crafted comment that runs contrary to his worldview - "trolls" in his lexicon. It has nothing to
Re:You've got to laugh... (Score:1)