[Vision2020] Tony's logic and soldier support

[Tony]

You know Sunil, for a lawyer, you really aren't all that bright.  I never 
challenged anyone to a fight.  I extended an invitation to Mr.. Kovis to 
test his theory regarding my aversion to risk.  He, when called on HIS 
bullying, declined.  And councilor, an ad hominum attack relies on a 
personal assault on an individual devoid of a legitimate response to their 
points.  Such has been the exact nature of Chucko's last two posts to me and 
several of your most recent.  My postings to Nick, you and others 
systematically address the individual points you make.  Your analysis of 
this encounter demonstrates that you are not a man capable of making nuanced 
judgments - a man unable to grasp subtle distinctions.  I don't "bluster 
around" lawyer man, I only offered a bully an opportunity for vindication.

Really Sunil, your silly clucking that I am incapable of authoring a well 
argued piece is defied by the manifest eloquence I so frequently display for 
your edification.  A level of sheer talent that you, even as a lawyer, can 
only aspire to.

Your beloved mentor,   -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tony's logic and soldier support


> Keely,
>
> The next time Tony offers a well-argued post will be the first time.  I 
> note
> with some amazement his recent protests to ad hominum attacks.  Perhaps
> Irony Inc. has chosen him as a spokesman. Apparently he opposes what he
> calls ad hominum attacks on him; the rest of the time he embraces them.
>
> Since he won't go fight there himself, I'd like to see him offer a
> thoughtful defense of the Iraq war.  I look forward to reading a defense 
> of
> our privatization of Iraq's oil, and the building of long-term bases.  I'd
> like to see him coherently explain the different rationales offered for 
> the
> war, and defend them.
>
> That would be asking too much.  As offal predictably slides down a sewer
> line, so will the Tiger holler that he doesn't have to explain anything to
> anyone.  Like Biff Tannen he'll bluster around, yelling in our faces and
> like the neighborhood bully will challenge others to fight; after all, 
> he's
> quite a man.  We know, he tells us every five minutes.
>
> What he won't do is say something meaningful.  Nor will he substantiate 
> any
> of his claims.
>
> Sunil
>
>
>>From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>>To: tonytime at clearwire.net, privatejf32 at hotmail.com
>>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Tony's logic and soldier support
>>Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:13:19 -0800
>>
>>Tony's attempt at logic, below, is deeply flawed.
>>
>>He compares civilian support for law enforcement and the condemnation cops
>>could theoretically heap on folks for being too "cowardly" to serve on the
>>police force with vets' dismissal of non-veterans who crow loudly about 
>>the
>>righteousness of wars they don't serve in.  It's a false comparison,
>>though.  Very few people have any reservations about the establishment and
>>duties  of police, firefighters, and other law enforcement/protection
>>personnel.  It's a given that in any community, some will be cops, some
>>will be bakers, some will write for newspapers, a few will work in
>>factories, and others will care for kids full time.  The presence of law
>>enforcement is commonly seen as a universal good, but that good would be a
>>promised unfulfilled if everyone decided to show their support of it by
>>joining the force.
>>
>>A war, on the other hand, is not seen by all as a universal good,
>>particularly the US war in Iraq.  Further, it is indisputably more harmful
>>to psyche and to body to serve on the front lines; it is infinitely safer
>>to advocate for war with full vigor while not serving in capacities that
>>not only invite great and ever-present danger, but also require a surplus
>>of willing participants.  Police forces generally require set numbers of
>>armed personnel.  War seems to require steady numbers of willing soldiers
>>to enable further conquest and replenish the numbers of those lost in
>>combat, and Chuck Kovis' point that it's easy to rally for war by
>>"supporting the troops" while avoiding combat is an important one.
>>
>>I don't know Chuck Kovis, but hope someday to meet him.  I don't know 
>>Tony,
>>either, and if the pleasure were indefinitely postponed, I'd be OK with
>>that.  Nonetheless, arguing that Chuck's point is formed from bitterness
>>and cynicism and not from a skepticism well-earned does absolutely no
>>justice to whatever point he wishes to make.
>>
>>keely
>>
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>