posted April 26, 2004 09:34 PM              

then come back and we'll talk about supporting our troops with more than just a meal of sterile words served up with their pitiful ration of food stamps

posted April 26, 2004 10:01 PM            

And if someone truly is clueless to the horrors of war, reading a novel sure isn't going to do it for them IMO.

posted April 26, 2004 11:19 PM            

******

raine6
I agree the book is a graphic and honest portrayal of war in that time period by someone who lived through it, namely WWI. I agree with Isis that if someone is so entirely unaware of the horrors of war, then perhaps just reading one book about it isn't going to do much for their understanding. However, I do think it was a very good book and certainly worth reading. I can't help but ask you this question, and forgive me if I entirely missed the point, but if

quote:

---

war is not an armchair experience

---

Please also elaborate on the

quote:

---

pitiful ration of food stamps

---

I notice you mentioned this book in another thread though I can't remember which one atm (at the moment) but I did reply to it there as well. I also asked you a question there, which I am not sure whether or not you have already answered, so please allow me to ask again. Have you ever read the book, "Night" by Elie Wiesel?

Edit
I found the thread, here's the link:

Here I go with Kerry and Bush ...

posted April 26, 2004 11:32 PM              

unless you have been in combat, is it not the nearest thing to mockery of the very troops you presume to support to say that?

i speak as someone who has never shared that experience, and there is no way i can claim to have an "inkling of what war is about or the horrors of war" and neither can anyone else. logic will tell you that

my point was that most of us have been blessed with a relatively peaceful existence and need to learn more about how to truly "support our troops" if we are serious about it

i still say it would be a good idea to at least try to give ourselves some knowledge of their reality, even though it would be as limited as the mere reading of a novel

reading such an account would certainly beam some light of reality on any "glory factor" and it is better than expounding on "supporting our troops" while remaining blissfully ignorant of what they must endure

for the record, someone here accused me of supporting saddam because i do not agree with their views, but i posted this because i care about the troops more than most

i have already lost one son, so i can relate to those photos of very real coffins

and the caption "we're home, mom" might just mean more to me than it does to you

(my son did not die in war--there are other wars going on to which people are blind also)

posted April 26, 2004 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

isis, how can you assume that you and most others already know about war, and that reading someone's upfront-and-personal account of it would not "do the job" for those few who might not? unless you have been in combat, is it not the nearest thing to mockery of the very troops you presume to support to say that?

---

quote:

---

i speak as someone who has never shared that experience, and there is no way i can claim to have an "inkling of what war is about or the horrors of war" and neither can anyone else. logic will tell you that

---

quote:

---

my point was that most of us have been blessed with a relatively peaceful existence and need to learn more about how to truly "support our troops" if we are serious about it

---

quote:

---

i still say it would be a good idea to at least try to give ourselves some knowledge of their reality, even though it would be as limited as the mere reading of a novel

---

quote:

---

reading such an account would certainly beam some light of reality on any "glory factor"

---

quote:

---

and it is better than expounding on "supporting our troops" while remaining blissfully ignorant of what they must endure

---

What do you do to support the troops? Please, expound away.

quote:

---

for the record, someone here accused me of supporting saddam because i do not agree with their views,

---

quote:

---

but i posted this because i care about the troops more than most

---

quote:

---

i have already lost one son, so i can relate to those photos of very real coffins. and the caption "we're home, mom" might just mean more to me than it does to you

---

quote:

---

so if it has not impacted you that food stamps are supporting the families of those who are fighting in iraq, and if that doesn't in itself bother you, even if you truly believe this war is to bring peace to the world, then again, i suggest you read the book--and petition congress to increase their food stamps

---

posted April 27, 2004 12:11 AM              

hopefully, you were maybe just not making the connection. and in fact, did you know that many benefits are being further CUT, including medical benefits, and the average wait of a veteran to get in to a VA hospital is six months (from the Disabled American Veterans association)

no, i have not read "night" but i have read other things by elie wiesel, and i shall add reading that to my long to-do list

********
randall, the suicide bombers are related to food stamps for veterans how? was your remark made to negate what i was saying about the veterans? does that translate into being perceived as dancing with glee about the suicide bombers and their victims?

for the record, i despise what they do as much as you do, probably more so because of my own experiences, but it also compels me to look at why they are driven to such drastic measures. and might those very bombers be recruited from among the many disenfranchised and desperate people who have no hope of anything else? like the ones we are generating by what we are doing over there?

has anyone here ever really looked at how the world might look from the viewpoint of someone only able to throw rocks at tanks that have rolled into their living space?

and please do not take that as justification for their actions. there seems to be a lot of that type of twisting and distorting so i will halt it upfront: i do not endorse what they are doing; i repeat, i despise what they are doing. is that clear? i also despise what continues to be done to the palestinians and our part of what is being done in the name of bringing peace to the world

i do not have any relatives or close friends in the military, so i speak from no other interest than that veterans are overlooked and under-appreciated and i care deeply about them

thus it is particularly painful to be accused of not caring at all about saddam's victims. instead of leaping to such grievous and below-the-belt assumptions, why aren't people wondering why such atrocities were not addressed ten years ago? politics makes strange bedfellows indeed; if it's convenient we can certainly overlook a lot

and that is one reason i do not overlook the babies and other innocents who continue to suffer from o-u-r attacks; i am apolitical

i just believe in all life on the planet, and i act upon the bumper sticker: IF YOU WANT PEACE, WORK FOR JUSTICE

so if you see me post something, it is not driven by politics as usual, but by an abiding caring and concern for the underdogs of the world who need an advocate. if you, too, want peace, perhaps you might consider digging a little deeper into issues of justice--and injustice

there is plenty of it to go around both here and around the world. it just might be a step toward global unity

posted April 27, 2004 12:45 AM            

I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were trying to say with that comment before I responded. I didn't want to just jump to conclusions about how you feel or think.
Here is an article that will help with a little of your misinformation:

quote:

---

The Truth About Troops on Food Stamps
February 27, 2001

The current concern about those who serve in the military -- especially their pay and quality of life -- is a good thing, but also a little misguided in places. Sure, defending America is not a job to be foisted by the better-off and well connected onto the low-paid help. But unfortunately, the widespread ignorance about military life in a society where we don't have the draft anymore makes informed discussion of the subject difficult.

For example, much is being made of the fact that some 5,000 military families receive food stamps. But this actually comes to about one in every 200 families, a considerably lower number than in the civilian population, and much of it is due to an accounting glitch concerning how housing allowances are tallied, which makes some GIs appear to earn less than they do.

The Pentagon proposed replacing the food stamps with debit cards for use only on-base. Instead, Congress opted for a targeted cash payment of up to $ 500 monthly. GIs and their supporters should find this troubling.

What is rarely acknowledged about these former food stamp recipients in uniform is that they are recently enlisted, very junior personnel with lots of children. These people chose to have children they couldn't afford and (very responsibly) joined the military to improve their standard of living. Their personal choices, not hard-hearted America, impoverished them. As one active-duty friend said, "Who told them they didn't have to wait until they were established to have a family?"

This is where America's lack of veterans causes a disconnect in the public discourse on defense issues. The guilt of avoiding military service inflicts on civilians a psychological inability to disagree with or doublecheck those who serve. That's why this line of reasoning (no extra money for extra kids) comes so naturally when the subject is welfare recipients but induces gasps when it refers to an airman first class.

As one who has been there, I can assure you: GIs study the pay tables like John Ashcroft studies the Bible. Central to every "fruit salad" medal display on a dress uniform are longevity medals. In my Air Force days (1980-92) you got the basic ribbon at four years, then a "device" (a little brass bug) for each subsequent completion.

Outside of job performance and special circumstances, rank and time in grade are everything to pay and promotion. You know from Day One exactly what you'll earn, exactly when you can be promoted, exactly how much extra you'll receive for going airborne or to a combat zone or a special duty assignment at an embassy.

One of the things that GIs hold dear is that a captain is a captain is a captain. Whether running a motor pool, performing C-sections or interpreting for foreign dignitaries, one captain is paid like any other, based on rank, longevity, (limited) number of dependents, job performance and special duties.

If you want more, it's there to be had, because all the things that earn you extra pay are things the military sorely needs done but lacks enough troops to accomplish. But you have to work for it.

The fairness issues abound when we start treating GIs like welfare recipients -- that is, more money for having more kids. For instance, for service people with a security clearance, "financial irresponsibility" is a legitimate reason for loss of access to classified information (and with it, career). Why punish a GI with bad credit but reward a teenager who didn't practice birth control?

Like civilian control, the military's evenhanded structure of rank and pay helps make it the source of social stability and upward mobility that it is. It's what helps to keep it one of the few institutions in American life that nearly everyone admires and trusts. Where else could a mediocre student born of West Indian immigrants have risen to such high office as has Colin Powell?

I'd hate to think that simple political expediency and cheap Dem-bashing by some Republicans in Congress is starting to get in the way of that hard-headed, up-by-your-own-bootstraps GI mentality.

More troubling is that America lacks enough veterans in public life with the experience to know when something complicated is being oversimplified for political gain.

---

My computer just rebelled so I wasn't able to copy the link for you, but I will try again later. I realize this is over 10 years old but I can guarantee you that benefits over the past few years have increased, including a salary raise effective this year, particularly for the Air Force. I am well aware of the promises Bush made in regards to military beneifts when first elected and how those benefits are being drastically reduced as well, including support for veterans, support for education of children of military families, and many others.

I really don't understand how you assess that most people who support the war are not familiar with the horrors behind it. Perhaps you personally were not aware of the horrors until you read this book, but I have been very much aware of the negative impacts of all wars for many years ... I just don't choose to ignore the positive impacts either.
Trust me, I do not think anyone needs to experience it for themselves to understand it is a tragic thing. Perhaps that understanding is not as deep as the one of someone who has been through it, but I don't think that automatically negates the other person's level of understanding ... and that logic can be applied to any situation that involves a comparison/distinction between what is experienced and what is known from other sources.

I believe "Night" would be an appropriate novel for you to read in regards to war as well, as I'm sure you don't desire to be one-sided. I am familiar with the book you recommended in relation to the horrors of war thanks to extensive discussion and debating over it in highschool. We also extensivley discussed and debated "Night" as well. Our English teacher felt it was important to hear both sides of the story in order to be able to make up our own minds without bias. I think it is a pale comparison to actually having had to suffer through the Holocaust, but nevertheless a gripping and very real, graphic portrayal of what it is like to suffer at the hands of a tyrrant and hope for some greater force to come to not only to your rescue, but to the rescue of the many other people suffering, too.

Oh, yes, btw, I speak as the wife of an active duty member of the U.S. Air Force, and as the daughter of immigrants to this country who fled from political oppression (among other things) in their native countries.

posted April 27, 2004 12:52 AM              

and in this whole process, don't you think the purpose of this thread is being ignored?
it was one of my many contributions toward supporting the troops--getting people to learn more about what they are going through in order to better "support" them

and you start out with a mean-spirited distractive sally

and frankly, i am appalled that you are as insensitive to my own loss as you are to the realities of war. perhaps no one ever told you, but you do not wear combat boots over sensitive terrain; please absorb that much from your interactions here and call it your contribution toward global unity

why is it you are that antagonistic, anyway?
am i hitting some nerve or something? you might do well to analyze just why you feel compelled to darken such a positive thing with irrelevant criticisms

it is true that soldiers are indeed not issued food stamps, but their families are. are you okay with that then?

and, yes, logic alone unquestionably will tell you that if you do not have an experience directly, you do not have the right to speak as though you did. rather than claiming that i did, i upfront stated that i was not speaking from experience. it is not a matter of "projecting my truths" at all. i seriously hope you do not wish to debate that

and it is a pretty good bet that it is an extremely small percentage of people who have experienced combat, wouldn't you have to agree?

but if you personally have donned a uniform, then say so and share with us your perspective. do you indeed speak as one understanding the intricacies of war? if so, how did you acquire them? do tell

and if so, i still do not think even then that my "assumption" about the bulk of us being noncombatants is faulty or worthy of your critical comments

now may we return to focusing on how best to support the troops?

posted April 27, 2004 01:20 AM              

"What is rarely acknowledged about these former food stamp recipients in uniform is that they are recently enlisted, very junior personnel with lots of children. These people chose to have children they couldn't afford and (very responsibly) joined the military to improve their standard of living. Their personal choices, not hard-hearted America, impoverished them. As one active-duty friend said, 'Who told them they didn't have to wait until they were established to have a family?'"

this does not seem to echo "the truth" as it claims...rather, it seems very subjectively judgmental and assumes to KNOW that ALL of these people were indeed being IRRESPONSIBLE

might they have encountered other types of problems that lowered their income? do we not believe here in lindaland that we have agreed to be born when and where it is most advantageous to our own personal growth?

unfortunately, lack of understanding or compassion for anyone needing food stamps for whatever reason it is quite typical, so to find such harsh judgment of anyone on food stamps in the military should not be surprising

did the title of this not strike you as rather presumptive? who is it that claims the ultimate truth in this? and is it not irresponsible, then, to embark upon a tirade against the personal dynamics operating in the lives of others? this does not strike me as "the truth" at all, but rather someone's opinion

and imo, we need to get back to how to support the troops

and eleanor, i figured out "imo" all by myself i am correct in my "assumption" that it is "in my opinion" am i not? you see, assumptions are not all bad. we all make them from what limited knowledge we have, and that is the beauty of a place like this where our assumptions can be viewed from other perspectives to check their validity

and thanks for the honest feedback. this is more like what i think this site is all about

posted April 27, 2004 01:33 AM            

You speak time and again, assuming things about people, then extrapolating that into various opinions, heartlessness, carelessness, or whatever negative characterization suits you at the time. You won't answer questions directly. You won't back up assertations with facts.

You posted comments, I addressed your comments point by point.

Like I said, if I was mean-spirited or out of line, I invite someone to tell me, that is never my intention, no matter how much I might like to be. But I don't see here where I did anything other than question your obvious presumptions.

When asked a direct question, I answer it every time, gladly. Would you not do us the same courtesy?

posted April 27, 2004 01:49 AM            

quote:

---

How can you assume that I and most others don't already know of the realities of war?

---

quote:

---

Do you know any of us personally?

---

quote:

---

I find it ironic that someone is asking me how can I assume something, while in the process of assuming something about me.

---

quote:

---

What, in your opinion, qualifies as "truly supporting our troops"?

---

quote:

---

Again, do you know us personally?

---

quote:

---

Do you know anything about what we do in "support" of anything?

---

quote:

---

Or are you just somehow extrapolating that from our conservative proclivities?

---

quote:

---

Where in any of these threads is a "glory factor" mentioned as a justification for any warlike hostilities?

---

quote:

---

Of course you have read this book, so you know first hand about what it is they must endure? From reading a book?

---

quote:

---

What do you do to support the troops? Please, expound away.

---

quote:

---

...So I'll respectfully ask again, what is it that you do to support the troops overseas?

---

quote:

---

Do you presume that because you are anti-war that you are the only one who has a firsthand experience with death of a loved one, namely a child?

---

quote:

---

Or perhaps the more succint way to phrase is would be: do you think that those that support the war are truly totally clueless to the horrors of war and that they have never lost a loved one or child?

---

quote:

---

Soldiers are not issued food stamps. Please clarify.

---

Then say that, otherwise what you're saying could be construed as a lie, or manipulative. "Little details" such as "families of" vs "the soldiers" make all the difference. (Disclaimer: I'm not calling you a liar nor manipulative, for the record. I said, "could be construed", just to nip that potential accusation of an insult in the bud.)

posted April 27, 2004 02:00 AM              

quote:

---

That is assuming that everyone here who is for the war has no inkling of what war is about or the horrors of war.
And if someone truly is clueless to the horrors of war, reading a novel sure isn't going to do it for them IMO.

---

in light of the topic, don't you think that this assumption of yours that i was assuming what you say i was assuming is less than enthusiastically supportive of what i WAS saying about the troops, and yes, it did detract from my message of concern...and still does

but to satisfy your less-than-loving challenges, if you don't like the word sally, then i shall respond:

quote:

---

You speak time and again, assuming things about people, then extrapolating that into various opinions, heartlessness, carelessness, or whatever negative characterization suits you at the time. You won't answer questions directly. You won't back up assertations with facts...When asked a direct question, I answer it every time, gladly.

---

time and again, eh? again, why post something so obviously inflammatory like this on a site about helping veterans?

and you sound like you are baiting me to duel with you over who comes out ahead in the "you won't..." and "i...every time" department, but i shall have to disappoint you. it is not worthy of either one of us

and btw, how about sending something like those "good things which belong to prosperity" my way? don't you think i could use a little prosperity in my life? or do you just assume that i have a need to admire only? or is that just a cute saying?

posted April 27, 2004 02:13 AM            

I am not baiting you to a verbal duel, to be honest, you're hardly a worthy opponent in my opinion, you have no idea how to debate. Randall, if that's mean enough to get banned, so be it, my deepest regrets, but...My apologies to all who are offended, but respectfully, in order to engage in a "duel" of any sort, one must know the rules, and quite frankly Raine, you don't.

Look, I think what you fail to see here, and maybe I'm the only one who sees it (and if so, I'll certainly stfu), but you put forth your opinion, not as merely your opinion, but the only right, the only truth, the only answer. THAT is what I have a problem with. You don't preface things with "I think", "I believe", "IMO". You present your opinion as fact. Add to that, when someone contradicts you, you don't engage their questions, concerns, or contradiction directly, you chalk it up to them being some how less enlightened or evolved than you, heartless, uncaring, etc. Hence my overuse of the word, proselytize, when referring to your communication style.

*edit* Irrelevant, apologies.

posted April 27, 2004 02:17 AM            

Actually, I don't think the section you quoted is at all misleading. It may be hard for some to swallow, but I certainly think it is accurate. You must understand that when you sign up for the military, your circumstances/situations are heavily recorded and used to determine the kinds of things you do and don't qualify for. I think it is also important to note that the amount of pay a soldier's family receives does include, to a limited amount, his/her dependents ... clearly, it can be inferred that if a certain allowance is made for a particular amount of children, there must be a number of families who have more than that number qualifying for food stamps ... not to mention that the majority of these benefits go to families with a lot of children anyway (the elderly and the disabled are the other high percentages), assuming they fall into the other appropriate regulations for aid. It is also important to note that a soldier's pay increases with rank, but there are generous allowances made for food and housing especially if you live off base. The military tends to attract a lot of young men and women into service precisely because of the benefits it offers over other routes that perhaps are not as affordable (college/university) because of their circumstances. If there is one thing that I can tell you from personal experience, it is that the military looks out for its own very much in regards to financial situations and there are many options available to those who need help. This article is also entirely accurate as far as the fact goes that a soldier will know, at all times, what his/her pay will be and why, and when an increase can be expected. It is your responsiblity to plan accordingly, as with anything else.

Listen, I grew up poor myself and I know exactly what it's like to have to depend on government aid to survive, although I don't recall being on food stamps for more than a few months because my parents refused to allow that to be something we were dependent on ... very hardworking people, and aware that there were many other people worse off than us who very likely needed those benefits more. Why do you think that someone who can acknowledge personal responsibility in regards to financial situations is "lack(ing)" in "understanding" and "compassion"? I've been there, I know from experience, and it is both a matter of circumstance and one of personal responsibility. I don't think that view implies a negative meaning towards the person ... just perhaps some choices that they made that lead to where they are now, regardless of whether or not the choice was a "right" one or a "wrong" one in anyone's eyes. This person speaks from experience, considering that s/he was also a member of the armed forces. I suppose in some aspects it reflects his/her opinions but it is also just as full of facts and information that are verifiably true if you know anything about what it's like to be a member of the military.

Do you really think giving more food stamps to our troops would be more supportive? I don't think that is necessarily so, although it certainly might apply in some cases.

posted April 27, 2004 02:24 AM              

again,

quote:

---

i shall have to disappoint you. it is not worthy of either one of us

---

posted April 27, 2004 02:26 AM            

quote:

---

Look, I think what you fail to see here, and maybe I'm the only one who sees it (and if so, I'll certainly stfu), but you put forth your opinion, not as merely your opinion, but the only right, the only truth, the only answer. THAT is what I have a problem with. You don't preface things with "I think", "I believe", "IMO". You present your opinion as fact. Add to that, when someone contradicts you, you don't engage their questions, concerns, or contradiction directly, you chalk it up to them being some how less enlightened or evolved than you, heartless, uncaring, etc. Hence my overuse of the word, proselytize, when referring to your communication style.

---

I do not think you are the only one here who sees this, and I have voiced my concerns over this many times before. I just don't know what else to say to try to make it clear, so instead I'm going to stubbornly continue to try to dig through the "fluff" until I find ... something there; hopefully something that leads me to the reasoning and logic that may, perhaps, be behind this sort of expression.

BTW, don't feel bad. My signature quote, as well as Randall's, have also been questioned already. I don't mean this to sound offensive to anyone, but it really is just raine6's opinion in regards to them. Mine is still up and for good reason, in my opinion anyway.

No offense intended, raine6, really, but I believe we have been through this discussion before (the quotes I mean, although I have also tried to discuss with you the things that Isis has mentioned before).

posted April 27, 2004 02:33 AM              

you know, the more i read your posts, the better i feel about you. i am coming to appreciate what i think [IMO] is a softening of your earlier demeanor

i would like to think that mine has also matured through this interaction. i am learning a lot, and developing patience, i must say

oh, about the food stamp increase, it was meant to just draw people's attention to the fact that anyone at all associated with the military should require them, not to seriously suggest that they be increased

and just from a sheer military vantage point, wouldn't soldiers be better soldiers if they didn't have to worry about their family's welfare?

and we shall have to agree to disagree about the article, because i do see it as judgmental. but thanks for posting it--it is another perspective

and gosh, eleanor, my best personal wishes to you and your family. no matter from which perspective one looks, soldiering in war is a bummer

please share what YOU think could improve the lot of our veterans? after all, this IS the topic and you have some inside knowledge

posted April 27, 2004 02:43 AM            

quote:

---

it was one of my many contributions toward supporting the troops--getting people to learn more about what they are going through in order to better "support" them

---

quote:

---

why is it you are that antagonistic, anyway?
am i hitting some nerve or something? you might do well to analyze just why you feel compelled to darken such a positive thing with irrelevant criticisms

---

quote:

---

it is true that soldiers are indeed not issued food stamps, but their families are. are you okay with that then?

---

quote:

---

now may we return to focusing on how best to support the troops?

---

posted April 27, 2004 03:06 AM            

quote:

---

just from a sheer military vantage point, wouldn't soldiers be better soldiers if they didn't have to worry about their family's welfare?

---

Well, honestly, I don't think most people, military or not, would not worry about their family's welfare, regardless of how much money they did or didn't make. I think people would have an advantage to be better people if their basic needs were met, but aside from that I think it is everyone's responsibility to work harder or smarter to gain more ... and that great advice about the labors of love and the money mystique is always appropriate.

Whoa, there raine6, how did this become a topic about helping veterans? I thought the title was being clear when it stated "support our troops"?

Well, since you asked specifically about veterans ... I think it is necessary to provide adequate health care and insurance for them and their families. If they are also disabled because of their service I think that they should also have benefits to help them out in that regard. I am certainly aware that not everyone's needs are being met, but I do think that in comparison to civilians they have more aid even though perhaps it isn't enough to cover all the expenses. I can't say I know a great deal in general about veteran's issues, but from personal experience, my father-in-law is a disabled Vietnam Veteran (Purple Heart and all) and his medical coverage has been enough to allow him to live a reasonably healthy life and pursue a post-service career, and also his medical expenses have not proven to be an unbearable burden on his family, etc. However, if you would like some more information on issues affecting veterans in general, then here is a link:

Department of Veterans Affairs

I thank you for your best wishes towards me and my family, sincerely. This may come as a shock to some, but we don't see it as a bummer at all. My husband is very happy that he is in a career field that he finds very interesting, and he is also very proud to be serving our country especially during a time like this. I love him very much, and can understand how he feels even if I don't always agree with his views (like where to live when we are inevitably transferred ), but I support him and his decisions 100%. I must also add that I am very proud of him as well. It may not be the "easiest" life in some regards, but it certainly has its wonderful benefits in spite of the many challenges. We knew what we were getting into before he joined, and we do not regret it now at all.

posted April 27, 2004 03:48 AM              

you might wish to review my posts, because i do not think anything i have written has been "read" without extreme prejudice

nor have you acknowledged my offer to "go first" in trying to truly listen to what the other is saying could it be that you have been too busy flailing about with unhelpful criticisms to actually pay any attention to my messages?

and i must inform you that i will not read or respond to any more of your posts, as such intellectual dishonesty is not worthy of engaging. in fact, i do not claim to have enlightenment, but i have enough to tell me that there is too much darkness on this site, and i am about to abandon it altogether if it does not improve

posted April 27, 2004 03:23 PM            

Thanks for the clue, I'll add Primo Levi to my list of writers to look up!

posted April 27, 2004 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

i do not claim to have enlightenment, but i have enough to tell me that there is too much darkness on this site, and i am about to abandon it altogether if it does not improve

---

raine6, leaving this site would be entirely your decision even though I'm sure no one is trying to make you feel you should. I see that you do consider yourself somewhat enlightened ... I hope your progress continues to lead you to greater heights. However, how do you justify that there is too much darkness on this site? Please answer this question. I don't know exactly who or what you are referring to, but I'd really like to know in order to be better able to understand that comment and also why you feel that way. Then, please tell me how you think this "darkness" is supposed to be "improved"? Again, please answer that question.

******

I also look forward to reading any ideas and responses, by any and all, in regards to previous posts and the topic/subject matter at hand.