Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Friday, April 13, 2007

Guess That YD Officer GAME!



This picture was taken shortly before these uncouth young democrats "staged" their walkout during the movie OUTSIDE the WIRE. What a gross display of immaturity.

Please cast your guess in the comment section below!

37 comments:

WSUCollegeRepublican said...

Well... well... well, lol. Second from the left is none other than Angel Ojeda, member of the YD's, progressive student union and lets not forget the athiest-agnostics student group. Must be "Hell" to be atheist and have the name Angel. LOL!!!

chrissy said...

WOW, and here we hit a new low. Making fun of someone for their name, their name of all things. I mean really, has it gotten so bad for conservatives that we cant debate policy but rather need to have a good laugh because of someone's name? Are we in middle school here?

Out of curiosity, whats your name?

WSUCollegeRepublican said...

The only ones hitting a new low would be those YD's in the front row.

Lol, you ask someone with a pen-name their real name? How about the irony in that.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

WSUCR: "The only ones hitting a new low would be those YD's in the front row."

Not to mention the sudden rush of anonymous "conservatives" to this blog who, oddly enough, excuse, endorse, and defend what the left is up to...

WSUCollegeRepublican said...

It's interesting that you point that out Paul. I thought you were leading into that point so I decided to hold off. Perfect timing. I am still waiting for a facebook group in honor of one of us on here.

Truth said...

Oh I don't support what the left is up to by any means. Setting a date for troops in Iraq is foolish and more a political move than anything else. Furthermore I thought it was...interesting to say the least that after saying this would be the most ethical congress Pelosi tried to appoint someone with dubious credentials.

My problem comes with the idea that seems to be prevelant within the CRs that shock value (discouting outside the wire) seems to be more important than actual dialogue, and moreover that we continue to demonize the left as evil and america-hating. I think once we move past political rhetoric we can say that neither us nor them hate america. The reason this bothers me is that our country seems to be very politicall polarised right now, and the actions and words of those on this blog aren't helping that.

If you want me to stop posting then I will, thats fine, just let me know.

Tom Forbes said...

Truth, please keep posting as often as you like. Because unlike Professors Streamas and Leonard, I actually believe in free speech and I am intellectually secure enough to not be intimidated by opposing viewpoints.

In my opinion, the CRs have done nothing at all shocking. They only have been portrayed as doing something "shocking" by the Evergreen and the PC/leftist mafia that runs the campus. They exercise the power of the heckler's veto and marginalize the CRs as "right wing racists" to enforce their ideological orthodoxy. Surveys have shown that great numbers of people in this country share the CRs' opinions on both the border fence and English as the offical language. Those are hardly extremist positions in the real world, only on a modern-day college campus. As far as the war goes, 3/4 of Republicans still support a policy of victory.

I have to disagree with you on the whole "everybody loves this country" thing, however. Granted, not all liberals and anti-war activists are like that. But I have seen enough in Pullman over the last couple of years to convince me that there are some extremists that are thoroughly against everything this country stands for. As Paul so eloquently stated, there are moral absolutes, and there is such a thing as right and wrong, and wrong must be opposed.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

"Truth":"My problem comes with the idea that seems to be prevelant within the CRs that shock value (discouting outside the wire) seems to be more important than actual dialogue, and moreover that we continue to demonize the left as evil and america-hating. I think once we move past political rhetoric we can say that neither us nor them hate america. The reason this bothers me is that our country seems to be very politicall polarised right now, and the actions and words of those on this blog aren't helping that."

The CR's have done nothing that is not common practice of just about every group on campus that has a message to get out. That you have labeled their actions as set up for "shock value" - exactly the empty, made-for-distraction criticism the campus leftists immediately jumped to - betrays your intentions. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Daniel F Schanze said...

I wake up to find one guess out of eight. That is ok though. Facebook works wonders for "these" people. As far as blogging goes, they suffered a fatal blow on April 11th. Just follow their trail of coward blood and I am sure you will discover them. Hint: the trail started at CUE 202 around 6:58pm.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Daniel: "I wake up to find one guess out of eight."

Yeah, but most of us can't play this game! I'm out of the loop; I don't know who these people are! :)

Daniel F Schanze said...

I guess I could find them. Most of them are on my block list... but I could always take them off briefly. What ever happens though, this post was a lot of fun.

Sutra said...

This post is disgusting! This is not politics this is bullying. Please reflect on your actions. That is all.

Sutra said...

Daniel, I have to admit that I have been angry about this post. It seems to me that you feed off of hate. And I wont give into it. When you do things like this you come off as inhuman but I know that you are just trying to stand up for what you believe in. And so am I! But I promise that I will never do it though hate or bullying. I give you my word. I really think that the hatred between the left and the right is hurting America. Lets talk issues instead or making fun of each other's names. I know that you are just going to respond and call me an unamerican YD but I truly feel that all this mud slinging is useless.
In case you are wondering I am the one with the green sweatshirt on.
Have a goodnight.

Tao said...

I would like to say just one thing…and that is we in no way actually planned the walkout, it was rather last minute. After learning that there would not be a post film discussion, sitting through what seemed to be just U.S. troops kicking in doors to a montage of rock music seemed rather pointless. We all went to watch the PSU film “We are Dad” instead…you know, a place where intelligent and constructive discussion after the film is not only available, but welcomed. After all, what would be the point without it? I invite anyone and everyone to come by on Wednesday nights to the Progressive Film Series at 7pm. You can easily find the PSU’s film series through a simple facebook search. And unlike this event, you are free to express your thoughts on the film afterwards no matter what political affiliation.

P.S. I’m the one with the damn sexy hat.

Sutra said...

http://wsu.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31885681&id=27200794&op=3&view=all&subj=27222692

I Like this picture of us better!

Sutra said...

I mean this One! sorry for the wrong post!

http://wsu.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31885695&op=3&o=all&view=all&subj=27222692&id=27200794

Daniel F Schanze said...

Sutra you assume copious assumptions. That is really immature of you. This is not a disgusting post, or a post out of hate. This is what happened and you took part in it; fact. Your actions were that of your own and they spoke louder than words or this post ever could. In no way shape or form is this a form of bullying. You were one of the ones that walked out and I find it blog worthy. Wether you are Un-American or not, I think that is up to you to decide. Certainly you are against the exchange of ideas. That is repulsive in and of itself. Stop trying to spin what you did as something civil and couth; it's people like you that are destroying the country and taking for granted what our brave young service men and women have sacrificed for you and I.

ps- Concerning what WSUCollegeRepublican's comparison of Angels name and his religion... well I thought that was rather comical. Try not to be so sensitive and watch your assumptions. i.g. Look in the mirror.

Tao, how confused you are; quite the sight it is. Our showing of the movie was open to free expression. The movie allowed one to derive their own opinions; I specifically told you that. It was unclear wether we were going to have Vets speak at the end till after the movie. I again articulated this to you and your other immature peers. It was also unclear wether the Vets would be open to answering question as it was their choice. Again, I told you that as well. The WSU CR's never said we were going to host Q&A. We never served over there, thus we are not experts. As far as the introduction clip of the movie goes, you must be blind. It wasn't all about kicking down doors, which by the way, is their jobs. It also had interviews from the soldiers and how they felt about what they are doing. You and your immature peers are closed minded. You couldn't hear someones opinion on credit; I feel sorry for you. You spin everything till it serves as a suffice excuse. It's so sick.

To both sutra and tao, I want you to know I feel sorry for you. You missed out on a great oppurtunity to learn something new about the war and not something you got from your fictitious "war profiteers" movie. When I saw all of you leave... and when I read both your comments I pulled out the smallest violin in the world and I played my bleeding heart out; lol. Thank you for giving up your seats though, it allowed some, but not all, of the people standing to have great seats. I pity you.

Evan said...

"Must be "Hell" to be atheist and have the name Angel. LOL!!!"

You must be five. LOL!!!

Seriously get a clue. What the hell does your post even have to do with the subject?

And as for the subject, whats wrong with standing up and walking out of a room? Whats wrong with a group doing it? Have you never left a movie early? Or a baseball game? Or a play? Or class? Get over yourself.

Tao said...

“Tao, how confused you are; quite the sight it is. Our showing of the movie was open to free expression.”

I think you are the one confused. Free expression doesn’t exist unless you allow that expression to take place. Stop lying.

“and when I read both your comments I pulled out the smallest violin in the world and I played my bleeding heart out; lol.”

You moron…it’s “I pulled out the worlds smallest violin and played ‘my heart bleeds for you.’” If you are going to be an ass, at least do it right. Christ. Second of all, our posts were hardly a plea of sympathy…so again, what the hell are you talking about? My post was to simply eliminate any misconstrued ideas you may have portrayed about what happened during that event, and to help smooth over the vast lies you barfed up.

Daniel F Schanze said...

I am sorry that you did not like my sentence structure; it is too bad. If I had more time... I probably would have brought a snow shovel to debunk your BS understanding of the events. I think you should stop with the whole "we didn't support free expression" when we did. Maybe you should loosen up that little black hat of yours. It would appear that is is causing you to misinterpret the situation. It is quite amazing that someone has such a great understanding on what went on and what did not go on at the movie showing. Cry me a river man.... cry me a river.

I'll be here all week-

Tao said...

“I think you should stop with the whole "we didn't support free expression" when we did.”

Really? How? I don’t see any listed examples. Maybe that’s because you have none. You told us to take our opinions home with us, and that there would not be a post film discussion. How is that NOT pissing on the idea behind free expression?

“Maybe you should loosen up that little black hat of yours.”

Maybe you should loosen up that fruity looking blue shirt you wore that day. Either that…or come out of the closet.

“It would appear that is is causing you to misinterpret the situation. It is quite amazing that someone has such a great understanding on what went on and what did not go on at the movie showing.”

I think you are the only one who may be misinterpreting, nay, flat out LYING about the event. It might seem amazing to you, but for people like me who don’t feel the constant need to lie in order to make myself look good, it’s quite easy to understand what went on last Wednesday. In case you forgot the actual story is posted above.

Adam J. Niehenke said...

Wow Tao, sounds like you have something defiantly rammed up your butt. Common, you guys embarrassed yourself with your own actions. We did nothing wrong at all and did not hinder free speech or expression. Instead of pretending to know what we are talking about (like the YDs), we show it from the experts who have been there. Then, we let you make your own opinion. But that would require you to think, I know that sounds impossible, but please try. You guys couldn’t even listen to what the troops have to say…..I think that speaks for itself. You guys wanted discussion so you could take over the documentary that you let go in one ear and out the other; then you guys would impose your beliefs on other people instead of letting people form their own. Remind me again who hinder freedom off opinion or expression? I think Alex says it best with liberal tactics, “They lower the level of thinking, and then beat you with experience.”

I love how you guys start off with personal attacks, but I’m surprised you didn’t call use insensitive or racist or liars. The best is when Sutra claims all this mud slinging I hurting America when people from the left on this campus back stabbed us with the Fence demonstration. You try to silence us and say what we did is racist. When, we point out to anyone who read this blog how hypocritical the YDs are this is mudslinging. You walked out in the middle of a movie, this action was completely and utterly disrespectable to everyone in that room. I love how your seats were filled in a matter of minutes though.

But lets get to some of the great things the Young(is this in your name for a reason?) Dems missed. One of the best comments is when all three the Vets came up and said that they have never once were under equipped. Now, what have you guys been preaching about how Bush sent are troops under equipped? Then the kicker came when they said your little demonstration insulted them and gave terrorist hope because it symbolized what they have done. I bet you guys can tell me how the US abuses terrorist too at Guantanamo bay or how the patriot act is taking away peoples rights or how the terrorist are not in Iraq or how the NSA wire tapping of international phone calls of suspected terrorist is a violation of rights(zero abuses have been reported thus far). How many things do you think I can list of how democrats have aided terrorists? You think there is a reason why Bin Laden calls America a Paper tiger? You win wars by wrecking the moral of the enemy, how is that possible when people at home give them hope. Why don’t you (YDs) take off your masks and reveal the Marxist you really are? When you guys say we support the troops, its like saying Bill Clinton saying, “I didn’t have sex relations with that woman.”

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Tao: "You told us to take our opinions home with us, and that there would not be a post film discussion. How is that NOT pissing on the idea behind free expression?"

There's a tremendous difference between free expression and free-for-all expression. Your confusing of the two is common.

Freedom of expression means only that the government may not censor unpopular speech expressed in a public place. It does not mean that you have an absolute right to intrusion into private spaces and forums to express yourself (free-for-all expression). The event the CR's put on was theirs, not yours, and they had every right to conduct it as they saw fit.

So if anyone is "pissing on the idea behind free expression," that would be you. The Behind the Wire event was never billed as one that would include the elements you and yours demanded, so you had no right to expect them to be provided. The only people who could be seen as having their rights to freedom of expression threatened in this case is the CR's, since you are the one who demanded that they exercise expression as you saw fit, in their forum, and not as they wanted to.

Truth said...

Adam, I find it interesting that despite your claims of how abused you were at the fence demonstration it is YOU who continues to bring it up. The rest of the campus, including the YDs who as I recall from several letters to the editor were not involved in any way. Also, its excellent that the troops who we talked with at Outside the Wire did not suffer equipment shortages...but there are others who have. And this comes from people who have family serving in the military and continue to suffer those shortages today.

Also, I would think as a conservative you Adam would be most against the NSA program. The way I define being a conservative is small government...the exact opposite of a large, government-controlled spying program. As for Guantanamo, I say we've got people who we claim are terrorists so lets put them on trial. 5 years is too long in my book to hold someone without filing charges.

I think the point I'm getting at is that neither party, Democrats or Republicans, can claim they are the sole party of the troops, becuase even the troops themselves have different views on the issues. There are those who support the war, and there are those who claim its illegal, neither view is more or less valid in my mind.

Also, if BOTH sides could please stop with the personal attacks that would be fantastic, because lets be honest, everybody has done it here.

Tao said...

Adam J Neihivennazi-or whatever

“You guys wanted discussion so you could take over the documentary that you let go in one ear and out the other; then you guys would impose your beliefs on other people instead of letting people form their own.”

You are absolutely correct! That’s exactly what we wanted. We wanted to hi-jack your event and turn everyone in the audience against you by imposing our beliefs! Fuck you, don’t tell me what we would have done. Since when do you know anything on what I WOULD have done? Did I tell you what I was planning on saying beforehand? Maybe you can read minds? Or maybe you’re just full of shit. Only my friends and I know what we were planning on saying, and quite frankly, what we wanted to say would have pertained to the film. We wanted to discuss the FILM. Not the war, not to sway people’s opinion, but the FILM! You are way too paranoid. Three of my friends stayed at your film, and hardly did the sort of thing you stated.

“I love how you guys start off with personal attacks, but I’m surprised you didn’t call use insensitive or racist or liars.”

We, (the YD's) aren't using personal attacks...I am.

p.s. You are an insensitive racist liar/nazi.

“The best is when Sutra claims all this mud slinging I hurting America when people from the left on this campus back stabbed us with the Fence demonstration. You try to silence us and say what we did is racist. When, we point out to anyone who read this blog how hypocritical the YDs are this is mudslinging. You walked out in the middle of a movie, this action was completely and utterly disrespectable to everyone in that room.”

Once again, this wasn’t a YD thing. We didn’t rally at your event. Get a clue. If you had comprehensive reading skills, you would have known that we were there as friends, who wanted to watch and discuss the film. There were YD’s in the audience that stayed, but a group of us friends left because we no longer had an interest in the event. In fact, in a pathetic e-mail frenzy between Daniel Shanze (who went to my high school) and myself over a month ago…I personally stated after he invited me to this event that if there was to be no post film discussion – I would not attend. I have the e-mail to prove it.

“One of the best comments is when all three the Vets came up and said that they have never once were under equipped. Now, what have you guys been preaching about how Bush sent are troops under equipped?”

It’s funny that the vets stated that they were not under supplied, when one of the friends sitting next to me had a letter from her brother in Iraq, specifically asking for money because his superiors wouldn’t allow him and his regiment a necessary pack that would allow him to carry both weapons and medical supplies (he’s a medic). Just because three vets in the audience said they got everything they needed doesn’t mean all the troops do. Gee, that would had been interesting to discuss now wouldn’t it? Too bad that wasn’t allowed.

“Why don’t you (YDs) take off your masks and reveal the Marxist you really are?”

Once again, comprehensive reading skills…use them. We were not there as YD’s. We were there as friends, young activists, whatever. We aren’t wearing any masks, some of us ARE Marxists. As stated, some of the people in the audience were YD’s, not all of us left. It wasn’t a YD walkout. Get over yourselves.

“I bet you guys can tell me how the US abuses terrorist too at Guantanamo bay or how the patriot act is taking away peoples rights or how the terrorist are not in Iraq or how the NSA wire tapping of international phone calls of suspected terrorist is a violation of rights…”

Yes all of those things are true,…and your point is?

“(zero abuses have been reported thus far)”

Source?

“How many things do you think I can list of how democrats have aided terrorists?”

Oh Jesus this line again? How thick are you? I don’t aid terrorists in any way. If anything, YOU aid terrorists by continuing to support the war in Iraq. Terrorism has gone up in the world ten-fold since the U.S.’s occupation (Source: MIPT, which is funded by the US Department of Homeland Security). So until my views start killing more people than yours do, please kindly shut the hell up.

Tao said...

Paul -

I agree it is your right not to allow a discussion afterwards. It’s your event. It’s your show, and you can run it any way you want. I never said you had to. What I am simply saying, is that my friends and I all left because there would not be a discussion, and went someplace where there would be (the PSU film, “We are Dad”). It is disappointing that you didn’t allow for a discussion afterwards, since it tends to be kosher. That’s all, no strings attached. We left because of the absence of a discussion, and consequently, a lack of interest in the event. Mainly, that’s the reason I go to see any film on campus. So I can hear what students, faculty, and any others have to say and what they thought of it. Book clubs are another great example. When people come together to view, read, or partake in something, I would hope you would agree it’s nice to discuss it afterwards correct? When we learned that this wouldn’t be possible, some of us left, because it was the one thing that we were looking forward too. Is that really all that hard to understand? Our expression was limited, that bothered us, and we left. I never said we had the “right” to that expression, just that we felt like it was limited. Once again, I invite any and all of you to swing by the PSU film tonight. Open discussion afterwards is encouraged, and it really brings the film/audience connection to life.

P.S. In terms of personal attacks...If you push I'll gladly shove back twice as hard. I have respect for Paul's post, it was written respectfully for the most part, which is why my response is conducted in the same manor. If you want respect, don't post bull shit like Adam or Daniel.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Tao -

A point of clarification: I'm not a member of the CR's, which is due to the fact that I'm no longer a student at WSU, so I did not have any say in how the event was run and presented. I'm merely supporting the CR's on this point. As I like to put it, I'm past my expiration date. ;)

Tao: "We left because of the absence of a discussion, and consequently, a lack of interest in the event."

If you were not interested in the film itself, which you could have taken in even without a discussion, what were you there to discuss?

Tao: "Mainly, that’s the reason I go to see any film on campus. So I can hear what students, faculty, and any others have to say and what they thought of it."

Ok, there's that. But if you are interested in what others have to say, why didn't you stay and hear what the Marines in the film had to say? The movie itself was a presentation of other people's points of view. That should count, too, right?

Tao: "When we learned that this wouldn’t be possible, some of us left, because it was the one thing that we were looking forward too. Is that really all that hard to understand?"

In terms of the face value of your statement here, no, but in terms of placing value on discourse - which you apparently do - absolutely. Because you knew in advance that a discussion would not follow the film, you left. Had you not known, you would have stayed. This suggests that you had no interest in the film or its message, in and of itself, at all. As such, it seems that your only apparent interest that night was to potentially hijack this CR event for your own purposes. When you discovered you couldn't, off you went. So, again, if you were not at all interested in the film, why were you even there? Are you suggesting that you don't care for the PSU films either, just the discussions that follow?

Tao said...

“Ok, there's that. But if you are interested in what others have to say, why didn't you stay and hear what the Marines in the film had to say?”

I have already stated that I would have been interested in what the marines had to say. I was even more interested in asking them questions and participating in a discussion with them. Schanzey himself even stated that he did not know whether the Veterans would speak afterwards. More organization of the event on the CR’s part could have cleared this up. It was from my understanding AT THE TIME, that no discussion, questions, Veteran speeches, or analysis of the film would follow. For me and my friends, this event was no longer more interesting than the PSU film, so we watched that instead.

“The movie itself was a presentation of other people's points of view. That should count, too, right?”

Yes, but I feel it defeats the purpose of holding such a large showing. Usually when people hold screenings for rare films, documentaries, etc., like the many I have attended over my life, post film discussion takes place. It is usually the reason you bring so many people together to watch it. But then again it was the CR’s event and they can run it any way they want, but for my friends and me, it was the deciding factor to leave.

“Because you knew in advance that a discussion would not follow the film, you left. Had you not known, you would have stayed. This suggests that you had no interest in the film or its message, in and of itself, at all.”

Not so. I had interest in watching the film AND being able to discuss it, both of those things together, not just one. I can and will watch the film on my own time when I want to fulfill the first of those things (again with the point of such a large viewing. It’s nice to offer something that you can’t get when watching alone). As for the films message, I had great interest in it. It is of course the one thing that tends to come up in a discussion. What did the film mean? What was its point? How was the directing? Was it biased? Did I like how it was done? What was great about it? What could have been done better? Those very things are the REASON I feel a post-discussion is so necessary. People offer viewpoints and point out things in the film that others may have not noticed.


“As such, it seems that your only apparent interest that night was to potentially hijack this CR event for your own purposes. When you discovered you couldn't, off you went.”

Again, we were not out to hi-jack the films discussion; if we wanted to do that, then we would have done what some CR members did earlier last semester at one of our PSU films, and just came in after the film was OVER with to argue. We wanted to watch the film…I still do, but the PSU film called my name more loudly. Some of my YD friends DID in fact stay…three of them I believe, and unless the veterans’ speeches were hijacked then I guess it proves a point.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Tao: "I have already stated that I would have been interested in what the marines had to say. I was even more interested in asking them questions and participating in a discussion with them."

Not the Marines and the Soldier who spoke after the film, I meant the Marines in the film. They had another point of view to offer. That's what the film (documentary, properly) is all about. Surely you knew at least that much before you walked into the room that evening?

Tao: "As for the films message, I had great interest in it. It is of course the one thing that tends to come up in a discussion. What did the film mean? What was its point? How was the directing? Was it biased? Did I like how it was done? What was great about it? What could have been done better? Those very things are the REASON I feel a post-discussion is so necessary."

You say on the one hand that you had great interest in the film's message, but that because you wouldn't get a chance to discuss it afterwards, you couldn't be bothered to stay. What ever could have stopped you from discussing it with whomever wanted to discuss it after the event ended? How many of those questions you've raised can you answer since you walked out instead of staying? All of you who got up and left could have taken in the film and later discussed it amongst yourselves, through this blog, somewhere else, etc. Why was it really so important to discuss it there that you had to leave when you found out you could not?

Tao: "Again, we were not out to hi-jack the films discussion; if we wanted to do that, then we would have done what some CR members did earlier last semester at one of our PSU films, and just came in after the film was OVER with to argue. We wanted to watch the film…I still do, but the PSU film called my name more loudly. Some of my YD friends DID in fact stay…three of them I believe, and unless the veterans’ speeches were hijacked then I guess it proves a point."

Hrm... do we have a motive here, possibly?

About the only point this proves is that some of your YD friends were genuinely interested in the film, not just in the opportunity to attempt to hijack the event.

You should still watch the film though, definitely. It's too bad that you gave up the opportunity to see it when it was offered.

Tao said...

“That's what the film (documentary, properly) is all about. Surely you knew at least that much before you walked into the room that evening?”

Of course I did. But as I said, I can get that view anytime, on my own time, in my own place.

“All of you who got up and left could have taken in the film and later discussed it amongst yourselves, through this blog, somewhere else, etc. Why was it really so important to discuss it there that you had to leave when you found out you could not?”

Yes I could have discussed the film with my friends, but how dry would that have been? Lets be honest, we are all friends because we generally think alike, have the same interests, and see things the same basic way. If we want to CONTINUE talking about it after the post film discussion, then that’s great…but what I really want is a NEW view of the film. I want the CR’s take on the film. I want to hear what the sorority girls at the film think. I want to hear what everyone feels from the screening, not just my friends. You have to understand something, this is a RARE documentary. Large screenings for films LIKE these are supposed to bring people together, and give them a place to convene so they can talk about the film. When I watch this film on my own time…what are the odds that I’ll be able to discuss it with someone else in the near future? Slim to none. Sure if I go watch 300 this weekend I can talk about it to pretty much everyone…but when it comes to hard to find films, it’s nice to sit for a while and absorb each others ideas…cuz lets face it, afterwards you may not ever get the chance to talk about it again.

“About the only point this proves is that some of your YD friends were genuinely interested in the film, not just in the opportunity to attempt to hijack the event.”

We are all friends, and we all had the same motives. Speculate all you want, but I assure you ruining your event by being jackasses was the last thing on all of our minds (That’s more of a CR type of thing to do). Like I said, if our sole purpose was to hijack the discussion, we would have skipped the film and just came in later. Truth is…you will never know what might have happened, and neither will I, since nobody allowed a discussion to take place. But keep on pretending like you know what WOULD have happened, I guess it fits well with the current conservative philosophy. Accuse now, and don’t worry about the questions that are asked later.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Tao, you and I both know that there exist plenty more options for you to have had the sorts of discussions you're talking about. The only element that would have been taken away that you apparently were after is the element of theatre.

Tao: "Like I said, if our sole purpose was to hijack the discussion, we would have skipped the film and just came in later."

Right. And since there was no discussion, there went your sole purpose. The film apparently had nothing to do with you being there.

Tao: "Truth is…you will never know what might have happened, and neither will I, since nobody allowed a discussion to take place."

It has really stopped you now, hasn't it? The only thing missing is your knowledge of the film itself, which you walked out on when you learned that the CR's forum couldn't be used as your own forum.

Tao: "But keep on pretending like you know what WOULD have happened, I guess it fits well with the current conservative philosophy. Accuse now, and don’t worry about the questions that are asked later."

Actually, the philosophy at work here is "actions speak louder than words." For your sake, I hope you don't consider that a conservative philosophy.

Tao said...

“Right. And since there was no discussion, there went your sole purpose. The film apparently had nothing to do with you being there.”

Your argument is completely flawed. The film had EVERYTHING to do with me being there. You need BOTH! Let’s paint you a picture: Think of it this way…what if there was just a discussion…but no film. I would have left just the same, seeing as I’ve never seen the film. There would be no POINT in me being there, just how there was no POINT to watching the film with a group of people and then not discussing it afterwards, since I can accomplish the same thing on my own time, and instead go to an awesome PSU film. After me leaving the discussion, would you then try and make the same argument and state that I didn’t care about it?

“Actually, the philosophy at work here is "actions speak louder than words." For your sake, I hope you don't consider that a conservative philosophy.”

Actions do speak louder than words, it just sucks when morons misinterpret, twist, and lie about the action itself.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Tao: "Your argument is completely flawed. The film had EVERYTHING to do with me being there. You need BOTH!"

The film went on without both things, and you went elsewhere because of the lack of a particular one of them. The film obviously did not have everything to do with you being there, and on the basis of the evidence, it was less of a reason for you to be there than the other thing.

Tao: "Think of it this way…what if there was just a discussion…but no film. I would have left just the same, seeing as I’ve never seen the film. There would be no POINT in me being there, just how there was no POINT to watching the film with a group of people and then not discussing it afterwards, since I can accomplish the same thing on my own time, and instead go to an awesome PSU film."

That doesn't work out. See, if there was no film, then there would not have been a point to a discussion about the film itself. However, the film is what it is even without a discussion, so it can stand on its own merits. So, if, as you claim, there is no point in you being there if there is not also a discussion - which is obviously false as the film is its own point - it leads back to the suggestion that your only real desire in being there was to attempt to hijack the event.

Tao: "Actions do speak louder than words, it just sucks when morons misinterpret, twist, and lie about the action itself."

Temper, temper, Tao. Tsk. :)

Adam J. Niehenke said...

Tao: "Actions do speak louder than words, it just sucks when morons misinterpret, twist, and lie about the action itself." Walking out and not listening to soldiers(Tao:you need both) says everything. No need to twist that message sent. Tao all I here is excuses for leaving, admit you screwed up and should of stayed. In addition, what have the CRs ever done that is dick like? Wait you can not name one. Ok, but I'll concide I'll stop refering to the leftist lunies at the Movie as the Yd's and now just leftist lunies who can't listen to the soldiers. Sound Good? I thought so

Tao said...

“The film obviously did not have everything to do with you being there.”

Thank you for finally saying what you should be saying. The film did not have EVERYTHING to do with why I was there. Unlike before, where you had insisted the discussion was the sole purpose.

“That doesn't work out. See, if there was no film, then there would not have been a point to a discussion about the film itself. However, the film is what it is even without a discussion, so it can stand on its own merits.”

I beg to differ. Discussions are held on their own merits all the time. Again…book clubs are good examples. People read the book elsewhere, and assemble to discuss. Yes, movies are much different, and it would seem rather odd to have only a discussion, but the existence of a discussion on its own is still completely feasible. I do understand where you are coming from though; the discussion NEEDS the film, whereas the film does not necessarily need the discussion. None the less, the point from the analogy I was using is still correct. If I did not have access to the film, I would have left a discussion; just how I did not have access to a discussion, and left the film. The reason for me leaving in both scenarios is different, but the lacking of point behind a large viewing is lost in both cases. I could have watched it on my own time. The CR event did not provide me any greater viewing experience that the comfort of my own home…other than maybe the large screen. (Once again, I do understand that veterans spoke. But at the time, this was not communicated to me when I asked about post-film discussion.)

“So, if, as you claim, there is no point in you being there if there is not also a discussion - which is obviously false as the film is its own point - it leads back to the suggestion that your only real desire in being there was to attempt to hijack the event.”

I’ve already explained the contrary. But just to humor you; the jump you make to this conclusion boggles me. There was no point in me being at such a large assembly if there wasn’t a discussion: correct. How that leads to my only desire being to hijack your event, I have no idea. My leaving because of the absence of a discussion leads to many suggestions:

Either-
1.) I really REALLY wanted to participate in a discussion.
2.) I wanted to hear what veterans had to say about Iraq.
3.) I wanted to hear what other people had to say about the film.
4.) I wanted to go to the PSU film more.
5.) I have a phobia of large events without discussions.
6.) I wanted to hi-jack your event.
7.) And many others. (series ones: unlike the last two)

You are making a broad generalization that is simply false. Now become an hero.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Tao,

I see you've been learning the art of the out-of-context quotation. Be honest; my full statement is:

"The film obviously did not have everything to do with you being there, and on the basis of the evidence, it was less of a reason for you to be there than the other thing." [emphasis added]

Which you've admitted multiple times. No discussion, nothing to hijack. You got shut down, so you got out. It's pretty obvious, as it was to everyone there that night.

Tao: "I beg to differ. Discussions are held on their own merits all the time."

Of course they are, but not this time, which you thought you would find. So, again, you obviously were not all that interested in the film.

Tao: "The CR event did not provide me any greater viewing experience that the comfort of my own home…other than maybe the large screen."

Except that you were already there and could have watched it to hear a different view on the war, only you didn't because you got shut down.

Look, I know you're going to keep making excuses and try to spin the very obvious, very public gaffe you and your friends committed, and that's fine. We expect it of you. Everyone saw what you did, and it was blatantly obvious what was going on. You found out that you wouldn't get to spout off at the mouth, and then you couldn't be bothered to listen to the stories of the men who ensure you get to do things like this, which many that night found highly disrespectful. Everyone was there to hear them, and you apparently were only there to hear yourself. If you're comfortable with being that kind of person, it's your right. And you're welcome.

I think you should take Adam's advice. And also, trying to tell me to kill myself with a trite piece of contemporary urban slang... you need a lot of work, young grasshopper. (Anyone else reading: just Google "become an hero" if you don't get this part yet. Tao is apparently a lot less mature than I had originally thought.)

Truth said...

Paul, with as much respect as I can still muster for you, are you dense?

Tao has said (about 5 times now) that the reason he went to the movie was both to see the film and for discussion. In an attempt to break what I see him saying down further we can assign points to it. We'll give 1 point to watching the movie, and 1 point for having a discussion, with the object being to have as many points as possible. Now he knew that the Progressive Student Union would be showing a film with a point value of 2 (meaning it would have both a film and discussion). He came to the CR film with the belief that it also would have a point value of 2 (film and discussion), and in fact chose the CR movie over the PSU movie with the estimated point values being the same (showing that he was in fact interested in the film). However, upon learning that there would be no discussion then the CR movie lost a point (which is to say there was a film but no debate), thus it was a simple matter of realizing that 2 > 1 (film and discussion > film).

If I'm wrong please correct me Tao, but it does appear thats what you're saying. Paul, you appear to be reasonably intelligent, so I know you understand what he is saying, so why keep accusing him of trying to hijack the movie? Really, is your word any more or less reliable than his?