Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that a gadfly like Dave Thompson continually sends letters like this to the Editor? Over the past year he has submitted literally dozens of letters, each of which points out some kind of perceived problem, but none of which ever finds a solution. Perhaps the Daily Journal should adopt a policy of one letter per month, per person. Then maybe people like Dave Thompson could get off the couch and go out and solve some of these perceived problems.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 10, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Congratulations on being a total idiot, Mr. Thompson.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't you think if the Journal had other letters to publish, they would? I would hope so. I guess if he wants to express his opinion over and over again and the DJ wants to publish it, seems like a win-win to me.

BTW, nice BURN, Alex!
High five? C'mon, don't leave me hangin'.

Posted by donnyguinness (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave is my hero. He proves that you can grow up to be an idiot and still somehow survive in this world.

Posted by sally (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obvious connection between Venti and Thompson... they both sound alike and Vent' just as much.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti,don't you know that if you and Thompson express an opinion in Fergus Falls you have to move?

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Sally, the first time I thought you were just joking, but apparently you really are that clueless, so let me clear this up for you. The word "venti" has nothing to do with "venting." It's Italian, google it.

Then come back and give me a big-ol' high five for the awesome BURN you just dished out on me and Thompson! Oh SNAP!

Posted by sally (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Venti- For the Roman gods of the winds, see Anemoi. That is the meaning I am illuding to, are you not??

Posted by sally (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Greek mythology, the Anemoi (in Greek, Άνεμοι — "winds") were wind gods who were each ascribed a cardinal direction, from which their respective winds came, and were each associated with various seasons and weather conditions. They were sometimes represented as mere gusts of wind...

Posted by sally (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lest you think I missed it..."alluding" is what I meant, forgive the typo...

Posted by freda (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think what the military need is for the folks like Dave T. to enlist, since they are so good at finding caves in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freda don't forget little Alex W on the enlistment line !

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparently some of you don’t want to be reminded of what Governor Bush said about that guy in the cave.
“You can run, but you can’t hide”, I guess you can. Wrong again George!!!!!

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, because if you don't enlist, you can't support the military, right? I've thought about joining the armed forces, and frankly, I still might after I finish school. If there was ever a draft, I'd be happy to serve. I honestly don't think I'd make it in, 'cause between my horrible eyesight and poor physical shape, they'd probably turn me away.

Nonetheless, the decision to enlist is a personal one, and thus, none of your business. Liberals are constantly whining about personal choice and tolerance, so why don't you practice what you preach? Or are your sermons nothing but ear candy?

Posted by freda (anonymous) on October 11, 2007 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The liberals are all for free speech. Just don't be better at it than them, or say what the majority wants to hear (truth), or they will have to take you out. I heard a black professor tonight, on O'Reilly, say that "Nobody has the right to have a radio program". They do if they can make money for advertisers, and that is the rub to the liberals. Advertisers don't want to pay for them to say what nobody wants to hear. (Isn't Capitolism wonderful!) Thus they want to go back to the "unfairness" doctrine. Unfair to forcing the American people to have no ability to think and choose for themselves (I thought they were for free choice as well). The majority still won't listen to their drivel if that is all there is on the airwaves. They'll buy internet subscriptions even more, and look out, they'll take away that freedom too!

Have you gotten past that I mentioned O'Reilly yet? Take a deep breath!

Posted by GRWhitcop (anonymous) on October 12, 2007 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freda,

You cannot be more correct in your post! Liberals have a lot of thinking to do about their own hypocrocies!! They want it their way but often tell us "we are the caring people and are always open to others opinions"!! Nice post!

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 12, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill O' Reilly is an idiot/blowhard/assorted insults coming from liberals in 3...2...1...

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 12, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems as though most here could benefit from reviewing some basic critical thinking skills. I've seen ad hominem, hasty generalizations, arguments from ignorance, straw men and red herring fallacies all through this discussion.

Claiming something is the truth doesn't make it so. Let's see some evidence here if you're going to make a claim. Rather than saying, "liberals are this" or "conservatives are that" - let's see an argument. Slogans/bumper-sticker posts are worthless, since they are fallacious (over-simplified cause).

O'Reily, Limbaugh, Moveon.org, etc. are not idiots, they have a particular agenda to push. Those who listen to them uncritically, who don't double check the information, but accept it at face value....those people are idiots. If something is true, it is verifiable. Thus, to make that claim is to commit yourself to responsibly providing that evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, then it's obviously the case that you don't know that your claim is true.

Posted by freda (anonymous) on October 12, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exegesis - you are entitled to your interpretation, and so is everyone else. What sources for verification do you use?

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 12, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freda - If all we're talking about is interpretation, then none of this matters. Are the debates between liberals and conservatives so superficial that it's about interpretation and not about how things "ought" to be, then it's akin to debating about the personal preferences of food. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, they can not convince me that watermellon is good. That, however, doesn't seem to be what the political conversations are about, or why people get so angry about it.

A quick search revealed the following websites, a quick perusal of those sites makes them seem adequate to the task.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/falla...

http://mcckc.edu/longview/ctac/fallacy.h...

If you distrust websites, you can always pick up an introductory logic book.

If that's not your question, and you're asking me a personal question, then I'd say that I like to use multiple sources. Nationally, I read the NY Times and Post; locally, I read both the Star-Tribune and the Pioneer Planet.

Same stories, different "interpretations" - usually the "truth" is somewhere in the middle.

I'd agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion/interpretation, and as far as that goes, I'm fine with it. But when people start claiming that their interpretation/opinion is true - that's an entirely different thing.

If we use a correspondence, or coherence, theory of truth, then you need to present evidence and transform you're opinion into a position. Let's be honest for a minute, I don't care what your opinion is, but I am interested in any arguments you may have to support a claim that is potentially a true claim.

So, for example, if I were to claim, "I can find no redeeming value in conservatives or the conservative movement" - I would need to present evidence for this claim (or I would think others are free to ignore it). So, I'd say that the etymology of the term means "to guard, keep or maintain" the status quo. The logical implication of this is that the conservative seems to see progress as dangerous. This seems to be particularly true of social issues (abortion, stem cells, etc.). In addition to this, if Americans had been conservatives, we would not have made the advances we have, such as women's sufferage, civil rights, the abolishment of slavery, etc. Conservatives, tradtionally defined, would be opposed to this kind of progress because it doesn't maintain the status quo.

Now, if you wanted to respond by saying, "I'd like to make some distinctions here, fiscal conservatives are different from social conservative, etc., and you're position seems to be focused on the social conservatives, which might unfairly stereotype other conservatives" - I'd say you're probably right, and we could have a decent discussion about it.

On the other hand, responses such as "conservative are right" - without further explication/argumentation aren't worth the time it would take to respond.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on October 12, 2007 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you ever thought,,, maybe our guys know where he is and are intercepting all kinds of information?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 13, 2007 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You may be right mel, maybe our guys do know where he is, just like they knew where the WMD's were.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 13, 2007 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

awegraven wrote “Yeah, because if you don't enlist, you can't support the military, right?” Yes you can. Perhaps someday when you are older you will learn that there is a difference between supporting the Military/Troops and support of an ill conceived war. As I have explained in other posts I can support our troops and still be against the war in Iraq. It’s like saying I can love my country and hate its government. Don’t worry about your eyesight the army will give you glasses (thru a wonderful system called government run health care) and they will also improve your physical condition during your first eight weeks of service. Then its off to WAR that glorious endeavor those around you relish with the fervor of “those who wait”. When (and if) you return on furlough your opinion will have gained the stature of experience, rather than mere speculation. Then comes the best part, you can listen with a slight smile on your face while others who have never done what you have done, tell you how they would have done it, or tell you how you should feel about your experience. When that happens, try not to puke.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 13, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there any other part of my life you feel you should be controlling, or is military service all you'd like to be responsible for? I can only hope that military service isn't what made you this high and mighty.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow Alex, Venti was right, you are a clever fellow. You cut me right to the quick. Of course you didn’t respond to the meat of my post, but I guess that should not surprise me. No one could tell me anything when I was eighteen also.

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just for reference chipmunk, what awlegraven did has a name, it's called a red herring.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspected as much, I did smell something fishy.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm 19, and for the record, I responded to you before you asked your questions. It's a personal decision to enlist, and thus, none of your concern or business.

Furthermore, whether I served or not does not discredit my opinion of the war. It has nothing to do with it. Are you saying only those with military experience have the right to comment on whether the current war is right or wrong?

Seems a little snobby if you ask me, but then again, I've never served in the military, so don't ask me anything. At least, not until I've enlisted.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alex, as I have said in other posts (most notably my response to a letter by Mark Eiffert) and I
Quote “Obviously, whether one is a veteran or not, both have the right to have and express an opinion on this or any other subject. I do however grant more weight to the opinion of a veteran on the subject of war, just as I would value the opinion of a carpenter on the structural integrity of a building more than that of a seamstress.” You my friend are still a seamstress.

Posted by GRWhitcop (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In this debate I am siding with AWELGRAVEN. Nicely stated! Keep up the good work with expressing your opinion and challenging others to merely listen!

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Alex, help has arrived in the form GRWhitcop, for what that’s worth. Just keep in mind that this is the same phony who believes that the doors to the Viking café are on the East and West side of the building, Check out his posts on Bob Williams Blog under the heading “This is the way to go” See if that’s the kind of help you want.

Posted by GRWhitcop (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alex,

My mistake in stating the doors to the Viking were East and West was just that...a mistake. You will find that Chipmunk will NEVER admit to when he is wrong in his posts...which is quite frequent. Please recognize the fact that you called him "snobby" when you posted to him in one of your previous posts. You could have not hit the nut harder on the shell! He is never wrong and is as snobby as you can get, so please dont feel distracted when he wont address your issues, or won't accept an opinion as an opinion. For you will always be wrong in the eyes of Chipmunk. He will not address any issue in which you confront him on in which is has cause to believe you are right, just the ones in which he believes you are wrong. He calls you a SEAMSTRESS? It is him who should be addressed as a seamstress judging the structural components of a building. He thinks he is the architect, builder, plumber, electrician, foreman, etc, etc. Trust me Alex, at 19 you are more aware of what an opinion means than that of this Chipmunk. Take care Alex!

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the analogy is off, but to each his own. But you're missing the mark here. On the subject of war, yes, I would give most military vets the benefit of the doubt. Keep in mind, idiots take up all professions though. I'm not saying you're an idiot, I'm just saying that are everywhere, in all walks of life. And why does having a military background make one's opinion of the war more respectable. It's still very much a political issue. If I had spent all the time I could in the military, fighting in Iraq, and putting in my service, and I still was here saying that being in Iraq is the right thing to do, are you saying that I'd be right, just because of my service. No, of course not. Whether one has had military service or not doesn't change the fact that this is very much a political issue.

I'm sorry, and I respect and appreciate the servicemen and women who fight for our country, but I do not value their political opinion any more than I value any other doctor, lawyer, or seamstress's political opinion.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In this debate I’m siding with chipmunk, at least his posts are coherent and original. Whereas GRWhitcop follows chipmunk around these pages like a little puppy, constantly nipping at chipmunks heels, or should I say paws. GRWhitcop’s problem is he never has an original thought of his own, he simply bemoans whatever chipmunk happens to be posting on at the time and if anyone points this out GRWhitcop whirls and turns on that poster as well. GRWhitcop is obsessed with chipmunk in the clinical sense, his obsession appears to be all consuming. He can not get through the day without resorting to his neurosis, and is not fulfilled until chipmunk satisfies his delusion and reason for living.

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My Dear Dr. Chipmunk, I believe you have correctly diagnosed a deep seated condition in GRWhitcop, Doctors Freud and Jung could not have done better, although it may have been more sporting if it had come from them instead of you.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 14, 2007 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alex, it’s not a political issue when you are the one getting shot, it becomes very personal then. It only becomes political when those who have never served (although they had the chance) or never will serve, urge war on someone else. I served three tours in Vietnam, and it does not bother me that some fled to Canada, at least they had the courage of their convictions and changed their entire life because of it. It makes me extremely angry however, when some here in Fergus Falls had the opportunity to serve during the time of Vietnam failed to do so because they were guarding a desk at the bank or an insurance office. But now feel no shame in vociferous language at Rotary meetings urging the war in Iraq upon others, or in these very pages shamelessly pretending to have served as a military nurse. Good luck, whether you enlist or not it's your choice, one option will add weight to your opinion on certain subjects, the other will not. Either way you can still have an opinion and voice it.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Posted by GRWhitcop (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Alex,

Did you see how Chipmunk changed his demeanor when fronted about this issue? You swung at his pitch and hit a homerun with your comments. Keep up the good work! By the way, his analogy was worthless...he was trying to stir the pot with you and you kept giving it to him no matter what he said! Here's one to you!

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wouldn't get that excited. Chipmunk seems to be taking Aristotle's position (in the Nicomachean Ethics). Namely, that with regards to morality and politics, it is not something that the young are good at judging. Why? Because they haven't had enough life experiences yet (and really, how many life experiences can a teenager have? Most of their decisions have been made by others, mom, dad, siblings, friends, etc.). That seems to be what chipmunk is saying in the last post, "one option will add weight to your opinion on certain subjects, the other will not."

As I noted above, you can have whatever opinion you want, you can believe that the earth is flat. That doesn't matter, nor is anyone really interested in it (as it stands). You'd have to give some reasons and an argument for people to take you seriously.

So I'll answer your question, "why does having a military background make one's opinion of the war more respectable?" Because they have a perspective on war (having participated in it) that those who haven't participated can't know anything about. Going back to Aristotle, it's about experience because experience is what helps you to make sound judgments. That's why chipmunk analogy is apt (not off a little). If you're going to say something is off, you should point out why that is the case. In this instance, the analogy is about experiences, which is why you wouldn't ask a plumber (or a first year med student) to do heart surgery (they haven't had the experience before).

Alex seems to want to be taken seriously, particularly about his position on the war. All chipmunk was doing is asking a question, "what is it about your opinion that gives it weight?" The honest answer would have been "nothing". But Alex prefers to employ red herrings and straw men to actually giving us any reason to think that his opinion is true, or even plausible.

I'm still waiting to see the argument.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the time has come for an explanation of what is going on between me and GRWhitcop. First of all GRWhitcop and mermaid are the same person, Mabelsdaisy is his wife. They used to live across the street from us in Fergus Falls and I thought we were friends. We went out to dinner many times together, were at each others house for coffee, exchanged gifts etc., etc.. Last year they moved to a lake near Fergus, we still maintained our friendship, doing everything we had done before, if not quite as often. After posting several times on this site, someone with the user name Mermaid began following me around these pages, not to post on the subject matter of an issue or article, but just to make personal remarks about me. (he knew I posted as chipmunk because I told him so) These remarks became so personal in the character I knew it had to be someone who had been inside my house. I spoke to a forensic computer analyst to learn mermaids true identity. It took two days but in the end I knew Mermaids real name. I confronted him about his personal postings and he explained that it was just a joke, that he just wanted to jerk me around for a while and he was going to reveal himself the next time we had dinner, but that I caught him before he could. He apologized several times and like a fool I believed him and forgave him. He also promised to never to it again. However on September 23, GRWhitcop appears on these pages as the protector of Mabelsdaisy in a debate with me on the smoking ban issue. From then on every time I post GRWhitcop is there after me with the same kind of insulting personal remarks as mermaid. I endured his posts for a while then took steps to determine his true identity again, as I suspected it turned out to be the same person. This time I simply sent him an email saying our friendship is over and not to call or write.

Posted by sweetpea (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chipmunk, your last post explains many things. I do not think you have lost anything however,
You can’t loose a friendship you never truly had.

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That certainly puts things in a different context, thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, now I understand. I also agree with sweetpea.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fact that one went to war or served in the military does not give their political opinion any more or less weight whatsoever.

I appreciate chipmunk and your opinions (although at this point, chipmunk has been the more respectful), but I don't do so because you fought and/or served. If you said to me, "I don't think we're using good counterterrorism tactics in this area of Iraq because of..." I would assuredly assign alot of weight to your opinion, because of your service in the military.

But I'm not going to assume you're correct on a political issue just because that issue involves the military. You can dislike the fact that it's a political issue as much as you want, but it still is one, and thus, you are not the preemptive expert it on it. And neither am I.

And I've explained my opinion of the war in other areas of this site, but so be it. Saddam had and used WMD's in the past. He slaughtered his own citizens, tortured and raped them, and hated the U.S. He broke U.N. sanctions repeatedly and without apology, and shipped WMD's out of his country or destroyed them when he realized invasion was imminent. The CIA shared this information with the president, who shared it with the Congress, who overwhelmingly voted to commence the invasion. Key democrats and republicans were both gung ho about the war.

If you want to discredit my opinion because I'm young, fine, do what you will. I don't frankly care. But all those things I just listed are facts, not opinions. I may not have a military background and I may be too young and stupid to have my opinion be respected, but I'm pretty sure facts are facts, no matter who tells them.

But go ahead, repeat once more how young and foolish I am. Most importantly, tell me my political viewpoints don't matter because I never served.

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But that’s just it, most of those “facts” are disputed (let’s try and stick to the issue here). If we define WMD’s as including mustard gas, and things like that, then Saddam had those things. He didn’t have nuclear capabilities, nor did he have a method for delivering those if he had them. We could talk about terrorism, but it’s another generally accepted “fact” that Al Qaida was not in Iraq until after the war started. Thus, before we call those assertions “facts” we need to be clear on what we’re talking about. I don’t think many people would have supported going into Iraq because of some chemical weapons, Iran and Iraq were using those against each other years before.

I’d also agree that Saddam was a monster, that he did many things to people in Iraq (particularly those who didn’t identify with his religious, cultural sect). Whether or not he hated the U.S. is irrelavent.

He did deny U.N. sanctions, but the part about shipping WMD’s out is not a fact, but speculation. That’s a story that was told after they didn’t find any WMDs. The cynical would say that this assertion was concocted after the fact. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but this isn’t a “fact”. I’d need to see some kind of data to even consider allowing this as a premise.

The information shared by the CIA is under a fair amount of scrutiny. The whole Plame scam is about cherry-picking information and feeding only the parts that supported the adminstrations positions to Congress. Thus, their “support” seems to have been based on false information.

So, what do we have here. Saddam was a bad man who routinely told the U.N. to take a long walk off a short pier. The U.S. does that regularly (particularly with regards to climate change). That hardly seems like enough to justify going to war, much less continuing to support it.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The simple fact that Saddam was a monster and that he will never be able to harm anyone again seems reason enough to justify the war. The fact that the country has a legitimate shot at a decent future justifies it for me.

Furthemore, Saddam was a psycho who repeatedly broke U.N. sanctions without regret. Is that the kind of person you want in charge? If he broke sanctions then, he would most certainly have done so again, and to what result? Sure, he didn't have nuclear weapons at the time of invasion. But you can be sure he would have loved to get his greasy hands on some. And given enough time, he probably would have.

The bottom line is that Saddam was a threat. Perhaps not an immediate threat to the U.S., but certainly to his own people and surround countries, and eventually, the U.S. We took the information we had, and made a decision.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exegesis, welcome aboard, thanks for sharing your fondness for logic and reason, qualities sorely needed on this site. Even by me sometimes. You do justice to your username.

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow…that’s quite a claim, that the actions of one person are enough to justify two countries going to war. It also tends to do violence to accepted principles of international affairs. It is usually thought that nations have a right to self-determination. So, the question, “Is that the kind of person I want in charge?” shouldn’t be asked of me (I’m not in Iraq, nor do I have a stake in what kind of leadership they want). Obviously there were enough people who wanted him there (at one point, the U.S. was among those who wanted him there). The speculations about what could have happened don’t really count, since we’re trying to focus on “facts”.

I’d agree that the government made a decision, but it’s our obligation and duty, as citizens, to determine whether or not it was the right decision (just because it was the decision that was made doesn’t make it the right decision). There are many “threats” out there, but to militarily intervene might not be the best response. That’s the question that’s at issue.

To put it another way, do the ends actually justifiy the means (assuming that the “end” is the one that was hoped for)? Since the whole thing would obviously be a failure if some other dictator assumed power in Iraq.

Many people (+/- 70%) would answer this question with a no. That the costs (in lives and money) do not justify the war.

So why are they wrong?

Posted by Exegesis (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Chipmunk - I have a strong aversion to dogmatism - it's a character flaw.

Posted by mermaid (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sweetpea, ffprofessor, exegesis - I hope you all make a truly great friends with Chipmunk as INTERNET friends. Internet friends are full of generosity, compassion, support, care, and any other quality a friend should have. You are missing the point of what has happened with this joke that was not percieved as a joke. It is funny how one person can play pranks on someone, or meaningless jokes, but then when the joke is turned on that person they blow it out of portion and turn the joke into something personal. Some people cannot handle the prank when the prank is played on them, but love to play it on others. Dont dare judge the internet postings as something with substance as much of the content on the internet, and this Journal site is pointless rambling. Has a joke ever been played on you, or you played one on someone in your life? Its called a joke! Lighten up out there!! I am sure someone can agree with a harmless prank! This is the Journal for goodness sake...it's not the courtroom!

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your “joke” only became a “joke” after you got caught. You are lucky this is not a courtroom because your last post sounds like a confession.

Posted by mermaid (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would you be continuing to address me on this medium and not the emails for which have been sent to you? Are you looking for public forum for future use?

Posted by mermaid (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And your jokes to me, mermaid, were not jokes or pranks that were simply in the spirit of FUN? Hmmm...I thought you were being funny, guess I interpret pranks, and jokes differently!

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see what you mean chipmunk, this individual is beginning to sound like a stalker.

Posted by mermaid (anonymous) on October 15, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ffprofessor....kind of seems you are following this like a stalker doesnt it? you are such a great internet friend with chipmunk!

Posted by toad3 (anonymous) on October 16, 2007 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mermaid,
Give it a rest!

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on October 17, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry, You are right, this has nothing to do with “Catching a guy in a cave” I just thought other posters deserved to know the truth regarding the space wasted by Mermaid at al. I have stopped responding to him but that does not seem to matter.

Posted by inuyasha_edward_forever (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mermaid, if this journal is just "pointless ramble" then why do u keep talking to people on here then? i mean really it makes no sense. (by the way this is my first comment ever, and i must say it rules!!! i have been waiting to get an account forever!) but back to my point. and i love that after like 2 comments these things don't even talk about the letter anymore, u guys just bicker amoungst yourselves, it is so funny, i really enjoy it. and aso, chipmunk i know some of your older stuff from other letters, U RULE MAN!! if u rn't a man GO GIRL!!! but yeah i think this thompson person is stupid, and needs to get a life. and about the guy in the cave. yeah we should be able to find one little dude in a robe, but i mean, look at our leaders, and then your not as suprised anymore :p but that's just my opion. and this is kind or like a funny chat room cause u all just end up talking to each other (or bickering) and it is very ammusing to read. thank u all so much this has really brightened my day :) wel i don't know what else to type so... bye dudes talk to u another time!

Posted by inuyasha_edward_forever (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

by the way, how is the dude in the robe in the cave?

Posted by inuyasha_edward_forever (anonymous) on October 22, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry i meant *who

Posted by sweetpea (anonymous) on October 23, 2007 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Inuyasha, welcome girl! if you click on a posters “username” you can see all their posts on this site (and the stories they posted to)

Posted by johnnyb (anonymous) on October 23, 2007 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

this is interesting, I see a lot of comments, some on the subject matter but most are not. There is a lot more to this war or should I say conflict// than most of us will ever know. I was shocked when I learned that our goverment used american citizens to experiment with LSD and that was around 1945.// I dont believe they have had a change of moral values.. We are all subject to what our leaders decide for us. We either go along with it or you do what we did to Engalnd back when this country was founded////

Posted by inuyasha_edward_forever (anonymous) on October 25, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks sweetpea! and thank u for that tip u gave me. i have had a lot of fun reading some other comments. man this site is funny. by the way, chipmunk, i feel so bad for u that this dumb mermaid person keeps bugging u. that must really suck to have him follow u around siberlly. i feel for u man. and mermaid, back off i mean seriously, u really need to find a better hobby or something man. as to jonnyb, i just thought i should point this out, (/) those r not periods!!! my god they d oget kind of annoying, since i knwo that u use those all the time, it makes no sense at all. and yeah our gov has doen a TON of things to people over the years, but obviously no one really cares enough to do anything bout it so u know what, oh well. and like i said before, if u look at who our leaders r/have been, it really isn't all that suprissing that all this has happened. and people rn't going to have another revolution cause people r lazy (i'm not saying i'm not) and they kow that it would be WAY too much work, plus people r just fine with living in the dark, i actually think people preffer it that way. but u kwow what we people SHOULD be talking about, the mall and how it can help US in little old fergus falls. lets fix our problems first, then the wirlds. u should all go to ffmall.iilife.net and take that quiz. it's about the mall and if u guys do that tonight, then it might help out the students at the highschool when they talk to the mall manager dude. they r at least trying to help things out here, which is what we all should be doing. i mean, look, if we had a better mall then it would be so much better for the community. for one, we would save gas by not having to drive all the way to fargo to shop. for 2, it would atract more business, which in turn gets money flowing and helps to boost the economy. for 3, it would provide more jobs for the teens around here who have nothing to do. and speaking of teens, it would provide a place for them to hang out and be with friends and not get into trouble, or be wondering the sreets. and lastly, it would bring more people to town, cause i know that people don't really want to come live here because of the fact that there is no where to shop, there aren't that many jobs, and there is no where for their children to go to to be with friends. so how bout u all go and take the quiz by friday ok. thank u for reading. talk to u peoples later !! :)

Posted by inuyasha_edward_forever (anonymous) on October 25, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OOPS !!!!! don't go to that website!! i gave u the wrong address. sorry. my bad people. THIS is the right one ffmall.iifree.net ok go to THAT one not the other one please. and thank u for your support!! :)

Posted by sally (anonymous) on October 28, 2007 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, after sitting here and reading all this I am worn out, but I think I understand that chipmunck is really paranoid and thinks that everyone new is his old freinds accross the street stalking him again. Especially if we have conservative views. Maybe his multiple personalites are all trying to stalk his friends, but they aren't posting anymore, except those above?? I don't know if they are posting or not, but I know I am not one of those people. I hope chipmunk can trust me on that. It would be nice to continue posting, but I am pretty tired of all this, and think I am wasting my time with all these liberals anyway. See you when there is some new letter in the Journal.... maybe.