Many posters can be tied to specific points of view or topics that most interest them.
Nicholas, a/k/a Ephraim is known for pushing questions of actual Holocaust numbers. He is also quite protective of those writers--like Bacevich, Astore, and Tom Engelhardt--who push reformist concepts of a more "successful" military instead of honestly dismantling the Beast.
Some posters relentlessly defend nuclear power, and others push the population problem in lieu of the disproportionate use of energy (and tangible things) by a small percentage of the world's people.
One of my keenest points is that of raising consciousness. And you were nowhere to be found when I strongly suggested this approach instead of what sounded to me like Agents Provocateurs pushing the FIGHT BACK meme.
I have often noticed that particular insights I offered were "coincidentally" picked up by others.
It is not insulting to point out a basic component that should be honored in a communications-based forum: that of offering attribution to sources of info.
You are one of the better writers in this forum, and one capable of putting the time, energy and dedication into writing nuanced comments. That's why when you leave out things like gender (when the subject is aggression), or the role of the Fundamentalist Church (when it was very relevant to the topic under discussion), or in this case, no actual link to the MIC... which happens to directly fund the NRA, I have to wonder and raise questions.
It is hardly a secret that I am convinced that people are paid by both private corporations and military adjuncts to saturate these threads with specific Talking Points. Together, the group is able to set up consensus and thereby marginalize those comments that don't fall inside the boundaries drawn up by specific posters creating a hegemonic control over the conversation.
I have challenged the conformist nature of this protocol in its insistence on essentially setting up its own invisible perimeter to where conjecture might go... for 8+ years. And in that time, my own commentary has remained consistent, has been offered in my name, and has come up against a TREMENDOUS amount of attacks. Those have been tempered since the cessation of Dis Qus now makes it harder for maybe 5 posters to post 60 comments (think: John Tredea who may well be posting under one of the now prevalent "new" screen names).
You have no humility. This is my 3rd challenge to the CONTENT of your posts and what you manage to leave out. Instead of finding rich grounds for inspired debate, you want to call me rude and offer other character insults.
It could be sexism... that many of you have this attitude that as packs of male wolves, you dare not be questioned. That so long as you salute one another and tell each other how right you are, you need not pay any attention to that pesky woman who asks annoying questions. Questions that go right to the heart of the status quo that is killing us all. Your allegiance to patriarchy is the blind-spot. And since most who post here share that allegiance, it's easy to paint me as a pariah.
But just as Vandana Shiva stands up to patriarchal capitalism and the horrific, diabolical ways that a war criminal corp. like Monsanto is laying claim to so much of the world's seeds, farms, and farmers... SHE will not be silenced nor will all the other women fed up with the way that MEN are focusing on wars and weapons, and this mentality is also behind science, medicine, sports, and culture. It's all about search and destroy missions of dominance and domination. And the MIC which leads the pack was left out of your post. Yes. I find that VERY curious.