People with the more radical philiosophies are responsible for winning people over, not the more mainstream ones, I always thought.

I don't think that one's responsibility in an online discussion--at least here at the Buffistas--is to "win people over." Certainly I do not feel responsible for convincing anyone to agree with me, particularly not somone who happens to be disinclined to agree. I think one's responsibilities are to the board--to not be disruptive--and to one's fellow posters--to not be rude or insulting, and to take responsibility for one's words when they have caused offense, either intentionally or unintentionally. But winning? Not my responsibility.

Well, I threadsucked this whole thing and did a search for the words "Bush", "Iraq", and "war".

Aside from me and Cindy and occasionally Nouemon, every single person who posted on the topic was against it, without granting that one of the Administration's points had any merit. There was not one post, aside from mine, that talked positively about the results of the Coalition victory--no "Well, that was horrible but at least we got rid of Saddam" or "The Americans should be more like the Brits in Basra when they take over Baghdad" or "Maybe Bush is right about the sanctions" or even "As a freedom-loving person, that picture of the statue coming down made me so happy, although I think that now there'll be a lot of problems."

That's all I meant by "groupthink". And that's why I find it so hard to discuss things here. I always hear the same things from the same people. And instead of being a bunch of people who are hanging around the water cooler chatting, it's becoming a bunch of people who feel required to do extensive research before they venture an opinion. Links? Apparently not enough. I want replies, but after a series of "Hmmmph! I can't believe you phrased that question like that!" I can't Sayyaf my way out of it anymore. No, I don't think of myself as a martyr and I can be snarky, but that's the way my friends and I talk. If I can't be myself here...

Oh well. Angus, Theodosia, and all, I appreciate the support. However, if Gar's style is closer to what this particular part of the Board wants than mine (I assume so since nobody seems to mind him except me) then I'd rather not be so disruptive as I'm obviously being without even trying to be. It was fun learning about cricket and robins and stuff, but it's over. It's not worth it. It's too much work and I'm running scared too much of the time. I can't relax and can't enjoy myself without worrying anymore about a Fay screed or moonlit thesis descending on me. Oh, of course, they and everyone can continue to post away, but it's obvious I'm upsetting almost everybody and they are genuine unAmericans, so...

There's one thing that Gar said I do agree with: I am the boss of me. And so I'm closing up shop in Unamerican for good.

Thanks for the good times. Unsubscribe.

it's becoming a bunch of people who feel required to do extensive research before they venture an opinion.

Becoming?

Yeah, Buffistas, as far as I know, have always done that. Except for me, for I am slackerish that way. And Caroma, if you change your mind, I did find watching that statue fall gratifying. But I fear it's just symbolic, though. I feel bad about not getting into "Firefly", because I feel like part of the reason my friends are sad.

This administration is a little too heavy into the symbolism:

[link]

"They said that there was no medical care in Iraq, and that there was a very strong defence of this hospital. But there was no one here apart from doctors and patients, and there was nobody to fire at them."

I wonder who was slapping Pvt. Lynch during the incident that inspired the Iraqi man visiting his wife (a nurse there) to both walk six miles to inform the U.S. troops of her whereabouts, and then to take his family and go into hiding.

Just on the offchance that you happen back, Caroma:

On the one hand

I want replies, but after a series of "Hmmmph! I can't believe you phrased that question like that!" I can't Sayyaf my way out of it anymore.

But on the other hand

I can't relax and can't enjoy myself without worrying anymore about a Fay screed or moonlit thesis descending on me.

Either you wanted people to reply to the substance of your comments, or you didn't. Your call.

So sorry to have given the impression that there's more to the world beyond the USA than quaint sports and cute birdies. I shall strive for more brevity and less seriousness in the future. Perhaps a rousing chorus of "It's a small world after all", whilst clad in a quaint National costume of some sort would be more appropriate.

Say, we use the word "pants" to mean underwear! Isn't that cute? Cor blimey govner, it's a proper pea souper! Chim chimernee Mary Poppins!

etc etc etc.

t /screed

Perhaps a rousing chorus of "It's a small world after all", whilst clad in a quaint National costume of some sort

I'd pay folding money to see Fay do that. I'm just sayin'

Fay, you should know that there's nothing so monstrous and unfair as a patient, detailed, well-reasoned refutation. (And that goes for you too, Moonlit! Shame on you both!)

t wink

But please avoid giving the impression that your method for trying to have the last word is to discourage others from replying to you.

Ah, what a wonderfully long way of saying "No" Caroma's post was. Fair play to her.

edited for needless pettiness.

I'd pay folding money to see Fay do that

(Hey, for folding money I'll include tassels. In new places.)