What I learned from the debates

[Siddhartha]

My god...Bolldar and I agree on something...

Wait..can I see the logs on that?

[Rosslyn]

I'd politely refute the generalizations in a couple of those statements with the following:

Israel has been receiving loads of US aid (and from other countries, I might add) for over 50 years, which includes many ideologically different administrations.  As far as considering Iraq a major enemy, pretty much any Arab nation is considered a major enemy by Israel (a designated that is reciprocated to varying degrees) but I'd suggest that Syria and Iran would be more likely targets if the point of attacking another country was simply to go along with what Israel wants.

Regarding the statement that Iraq had "zip to do with 9/11 or terrorism", I'll first respond by saying that unless you're secretly working in the intelligence community, you and I both "know" the same thing, which is what the various media choose to show us.  Given that, it may be defensible to say that Iraq wasn't directly involved with the 9/11 attacks, but to say they had no involvement with terrorism is a little naive.  Do you think it's likely that all of these "insurgents" have recently emigrated to Iraq from their happy terrorist homes elsewhere, or is it more likely that the majority of them were already there?  If they were already there, what do you think is the chance that they were happily banking, baking bread, and otherwise going on w/ a normal existence until some evil unprovoked attack caused them to uncrate the RPG's and plastic explosives from the box in the basement and use them against the aggressors?  Come on now...

As far as ABBA goes, that is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I made my comment earlier about "like everyone (including myself at times) who screams "Fkn Mythic!!11!" on the various online DAoC forums, yet has no reasonable solutions that aren't so narrowly focused as to make them unrealistic".  It's one thing to disagree.  It's another to offer a different solution.  Since everyone's favorite Evil Guy (Hitler) has been brought up, I'll point out that in history pre-Adolf, with Adolf, and post-Adolf, one thing that's been proven time and time again is that appeasing people like him does not work.  People like Adolf's distant cousin Osama have been around for a while, and nobody really bothered them much.  What happens?  Planes crash into buildings.  Trains explode.  Ships are attacked.  People are kidnapped.  Since evidently attacking them is evil, stupid, and/or part of one of the biggest disasters ever, can anyone offer a different solution?  I'm aware that Al-Qaeda and Iraq are different situations in many respects, but in some they're extremely similar and directly related.  Should we (we being "the free world", whether in the U.S. or otherwise) be expected to sit back and never do anything until and unless someone actually blows up something that belongs to us?  I'll put it a different way:  You see someone that you know harbors intense ill will towards you, and they're standing nearby.  You watch the person give you dirty looks, take out a pistol, load it up with bullets, cock the hammer, and aim it at your face.  At what point does it become appropriate to react?  Should you wait until you've actually been shot to do something, especially since you remember that his cousin beat you with a stick two weeks ago?  As far as I'm concerned, you have three choices.  They are:

1.  Take it, right in the face.

2.  Immediately produce some sort of full-body bulletproof armor for yourself and your family, and live in it for the rest of your life.

3.  Remove his ability to shoot you.  (This can be interpreted many different ways, ranging from sneaking into his gun at night and stealing his gunpowder, to dropping a guided missile on him in the street)

I know I'm being somewhat sarcastic (hehe, which should surprise nobody here), but I really would like to hear better suggestions.

(EDIT:  it's unfair to get into a debate like this when the rest of us have to look at those lovely b00bs dancing on your avatar!!1!  damn j00!)

(Edited by Rosslyn at 10:57 am on Oct. 4, 2004)

[Sodom]

To address Ross's points, I think the counter-argument you can make is the same one that Kerry made during the debate: We did the right thing, but we did it the wrong way at the wrong time. The right way would have been involve the international community, not take unilateral action. The right time would have been after the whole Al Queda issue is resolved: You don't put Osama up in front of the American public as The Bad Guy Who Did It, and then substitute Saddam just because he's the closest available substitute when you figure out Osama is too hard to catch.

(Edited by Sodom at 11:38 am on Oct. 4, 2004)

[Rosslyn]

"I think the counter-argument you can make is the same one that Kerry made during the debate: We did the right thing, but we did it the wrong way at the wrong time. The right way would have been involve the international community, not take unilateral action."

Not a bad argument, but I think it's flawed.  Specifically relating to Kerry, I think the flaw is that HE VOTED FOR IT.  It's hard to argue with that, in my opinion.

As far as involving the international community, this is the same body (assuming the UN counts as the voice of the international community) that was meeting varying degrees of uncooperation from Saddam's crew for years, yet the mantra that was repeated by nations opposed to the Bush administration's policies was effectively "just give them more time".  That was probably the one thing I truly agreed with 100%, being that when you're dealing with an entity like Saddam's Iraq, the threat of adverse consequences is the only way they're going to cooperate.  If the consequences are just indefinite periods of inspection (for years), why would they ever get with the program?

I don't want to be mistaken as a blind apologist for the Bush administration (which I'm definitely not), but at the same time I am honestly afraid of what could happen if Kerry wins the election.  While I don't feel that the president actually has much direct impact on things like "the economy" (i.e. there's no "let's make things better/worse economically" dial in the Oval Orifice), that person does have enough influence to impact the lives of all US citizens quickly, and obviously that influence extends to other areas of the world to a certain extent.  While Bush has certainly not been perfect, he's at least been consistent.  The prospect of changing our domestic and foreign policies based on the weekly Harris poll results really disturbs me, that's all, especially when the person making those decisions appears at times to be a less-than-truthful opportunist who supported the very things he decries on a daily basis now during the campaign.  

p.s.  since the UK isn't the 51st state, I'm going to assume that their participation (as well as that of the smattering of other less-militarily-influential nations) did in fact constitute the involvement of the international community.  Given the makeup and rules by which the UN Security Council is governed, it's EXTREMELY likely that any sort of controversial issue will result in a veto (or the threat of veto, which typically results in an issue not being brought to a vote), with the end result being that nothing of great import seems to ever come to a resolution.  Even in the world of constant compromise that is diplomacy, it's difficult to compromise on a yes-or-no question.  Is there ever an appropriate time to invade another country?  (I'd submit that "after the whole Al Queda issue is resolved" might just possibly be a little too vague and difficult to measure) I doubt you'll ever experience an international body that will agree on this.  Hell, they disagreed on what to do about Hitler for crying out loud.  Assuming you are able to settle on an appropriate time, what's the right way to invade someone?  Let's see, we don't want indiscriminate bombing because that kills the people who live next door to the weapons cache.  We don't want massive occupation because, well, it's expensive and some soldiers die.  We don't want to go and kill the baddies and then withdraw just to have to rinse and repeat the next week (i.e. Vietnam).  Since it appears to be a foregone conclusion that "we did the right thing", I'm at a loss as to what exactly we should be doing differently that isn't a tactical decision that the president doesn't control.

Also, not really related, my work day is extremely boring today, so I appreciate this opportunity to make the day go by a little faster.  

(Edited by Rosslyn at 12:31 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)

[Sodom]

Quote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
Not a bad argument, but I think it's flawed.  Specifically relating to Kerry, I think the flaw is that HE VOTED FOR IT.  It's hard to argue with that, in my opinion.

He voted to give the President money to move forward with his plans. I get the impression that he became dissatisfied with those plans once he began to see their impact: In that case, he registered his dissatisfaction the only way he could - he voted against giving the President more money to continue his plans. What Bush supporters call "flip-flopping," I see as a man willing to admit that he made a mistake.

Quote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
As far as involving the international community, this is the same body (assuming the UN counts as the voice of the international community) that was meeting varying degrees of uncooperation from Saddam's crew for years, yet the mantra that was repeated by nations opposed to the Bush administration's policies was effectively "just give them more time".

The problem with U.N. sanctions against Iraq was that they were directly impacting the people of Iraq, not people in power. The best-case scenario was that the Iraqis would rise up and depose Saddam themselves: I guess the Iraqi people didn't make the connection that the reason their children were dying due to lack of medicine was because Saddam's policies were forcing the U.N. to withold them.

Quote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
The prospect of changing our domestic and foreign policies based on the weekly Harris poll results really disturbs me, that's all, especially when the person making those decisions appears at times to be a less-than-truthful opportunist who supported the very things he decries on a daily basis now during the campaign.

And I'm equally scared of another 4 years of a President who will not admit when he's made a mistake, who will continue to pour money and lives into a quagmire just so he doesn't appear "wishy-washy."

Quote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
Assuming you are able to settle on an appropriate time, what's the right way to invade someone?  Let's see, we don't want indiscriminate bombing because that kills the people who live next door to the weapons cache.  We don't want massive occupation because, well, it's expensive and some soldiers die.  We don't want to go and kill the baddies and then withdraw just to have to rinse and repeat the next week (i.e. Vietnam).  Since it appears to be a foregone conclusion that "we did the right thing", I'm at a loss as to what exactly we should be doing differently that isn't a tactical decision that the president doesn't control.

The problem is that we continue to fight wars as if we're liberating nations from the Nazi's in WW2. It would have been a sight difference if all the rest of Europe had been filled with covert Nazi fanatics when we stomped Berlin: We'd never have been able to withdraw if fanatics continued to stream into Germany's borders once Hitler was deposed.

So, border control is ket. Once they're locked down, you arm the Iraqis to care of their own terrorist problems.

[Siddhartha]

I agree with Sodom. And I'll add that the War in Iraq was unlawful. The sanctions broken were UN sanctions, so the response should have been determined by the UN.

Furthermore, the threat Iraq posed was not an immanent one (if they were such a threat, why didn't they do better in the war) - so the assertion that the war was preemptive does not hold water. The war was a preventative one. Preemptive wars have legitimacy in relation to the threat. Preventative wars are not generally regarded as legitimate.

Here's more about the distinction between the two:

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/07/preemption_vers.html

Also, you may find this interview with A.S. Jr. illuminating:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/04/09/29.php

http://wamu.org/audio/dr/04/09/r2040929.ram

I grew up in a country where you don't hit first, because that's what the Germans and Japanese did. Over the years however, I've found that I don't live in that country anymore. I'm not sure where I do live. This place just doesn't feel like America. All I see these days is fear and greed, intellectual penury, and moral hypocrisy.

[Rosslyn]

I'd agree with Sidd just because he correctly used "penury" in a sentence, but I won't because of the irony that exists because of the spell checking penury in Sidd's browser.    j/k

In the spirit of having a friendly debate, I'll ask what makes a war a lawful war.  Is it because some countries want it?  If the UN Security Council had been around in the late 1930's and it was to debate the legality of WW2, that war wouldn't be approved because of the countries that sit on that council.  I think one's perspective of the legality of a war is generally based on which side one is on.  In this case, I think the political campaign is being used to attempt to portray a war as "illegal" in some respects.  Interstingly enough, even the argument of "he voted to give the president money to move forward with his plans" (and I'll delve more deeply into how much of a cop-out this statement is on Kerry's part) would be a case of aiding and abetting an "illegal" action.  

Going back to Kerry's stance on how he supposedly only voted to "give the President money to move forward with his plans", this isn't the whole truth.  First, he (and the other several hundred members of Congress) authorized the use of force.  Then, he authorized spending money on the military efforts.  Then, he votes against it the next time (a vote where he was significantly in the minority, I might add).  Saying that this was his only way of registering his dissatisfaction is a slap in the face to the whole political process.  He could have done what he's been doing lately, which is getting his face on TV in any way possible and railing against the war effort.  However, he didn't do that because the polls (not to mention the majority of his peers) were still supportive of the efforts.  In fact, that was one of the relatively few votes he has managed to cast during his campaign.  If voting is the only way a Senator can take action, then we're evidently not talking about a man of action.  On top of all of this, the appropriation vote in question was not to fund some major new offensive, or increased production of bombs, but rather to maintain the forces currently occupying Iraq.  Do you have any idea how many fuel filters the military goes through in that environment (I do, I worked for a company that supplied them during Desert Storm)?  Do you suppose the thousands of soldiers need to continue to be fed, or maybe that they're wearing out standard equipment, or maybe their day-to-day living infrastructure needs to be continually improved and repaired?  That, my friends, is what was being appropriated.  By extension, that is what John Kerry and a few of his cohorts voted against to make a political statement, regardless of what effect their actions could have on the well-being of our soldiers.  

"The problem is that we continue to fight wars as if we're liberating nations from the Nazi's in WW2. It would have been a sight difference if all the rest of Europe had been filled with covert Nazi fanatics when we stomped Berlin: We'd never have been able to withdraw if fanatics continued to stream into Germany's borders once Hitler was deposed.

So, border control is ket. Once they're locked down, you arm the Iraqis to care of their own terrorist problems. "

Isn't this exactly what's  happening now (training Iraqis)?  Aren't there supposedly (I'm not there to count them) 100,000 of them so far, with more to come?  You've hit on a key tactical (not political) point:  border control.  Since all of the surrounding countries contend that they are being diligent with patrolling their borders, of course nobody is sneaking across to undermine the US-led efforts there (snicker).  I probably don't need to mention that these are many of the same countries that opposed the whole thing in the UN.  Again, it's a matter of perspective.  Regarless of your perspective though, I'll ask again:  what's this new plan Kerry mentions?  Should we withdraw, obviously creating a power vacuum?  It's pretty clear to just about everyone involved that a withdrawal at this point would be bad for everyone, especially the Iraqi people.  So what exactly should be done differently, especially IF YOU'RE GOING TO NOT SPEND ANY MORE MONEY ON IT, as a certain Senator would obviously prefer.  I don't think "pouring more money and lives into a quagmire" is simply an ego-stroking attempt to not be wrong.  On the contrary, with all of the screaming from the left on this issue it would be pretty easy to back out and remove what appears to be Kerry's only platform at this point.  But, unlike his opponent, I have to give credit to Bush at least for being capable of looking past potential short-term political gain to do what he and the gargantuan support staff called the federal government believe to be the right thing to do.

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what Kerry plans to do differently, other than to do the same thing "but people will like it more because I'm not Bush".  Again, I'm not a Bush fanatic, but I still haven't heard what Kerry would do differently, at least not enough to sway my vote.  "I'm not as bad as that guy" just doesn't do it for me.  

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

Im writing this extremely late at night so forgive me if it seems disjointed

Nicely put Sidd, as to your points Ross, Isreal has always considered Iraq a threat because of there program to develope nuclear weapons. Hence the quite famour Isreali strike to destroy the Iraqui nuclear reactor.  Syria certainly has been considered a threat by Isreal but one which they could easily reach with both land and air power, not so Iraq.

To say Iraq posed a threat to America is pretty much ludicrous, we are talking about a nation which (a) did nothing to the US, and (b) while Sadam may have been cold blooded and ruthless, he wasnt stupid enough to launch an attack on the US with his nation which isnt much bigger than Australia or New York city. I mean to say who will you pre emptively strike next?? Lichenstein? hell yeah their scary.  The US spends over half the worlds total military budget and we saw the result of that in Iraq, yup they were a big threat. The US has over half the worlds nukes and has a record of using them as well as attacking most countries around it, and well everywhere. The reasons for attacking Iraq have varied as the Bush administration has felt the public would respond to them best. None of them were really valid reasons to attack and if holding nuclear weapons or WMD (in the case of Iraq, Weapons of Mass dissapearance) is a crime then the biggest cultprit is the US.

Ive seen quite a number of interviews with intelligence officials including the Head of Covert operations for the CIA stating that they (Iraq) werent a threat and that that advice was given to the US administration. I see officials in the intelligence community (US) saying one thing  and Bush, Condaleesa Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc spouting a contradictory line, which I might add also contradicts there own statements of not so long before 9/11. I doubt you get the same news as we do and from what ive seen of  your medias actions they have been incrediably accomadating to the Bush administration or simple propaganda mouthpeices waving the flag and making jingoistic and bellicose statements in the case of Fox news (without doubt the worse news service in any major nation)

As regards the coalition of the willing, its a bit of a joke when 70% of the population of Britain and Australia and a large percentage of the Spanish and Italian populations were against the war. So a description of the coalition of the co erced, bullied and bribed (Australia was with a FTA) is far more apt.

Btw the Internation court has already stated that Bush could be charged with similar charges as German leaders were after WW II for waging a war of agression. Add in 35 violations of the Geneva convention and kidnapping of people from neutral countries, indefinate detention without charge or trial, (if you doubt that read your USAPATRIOT act 1 and II ) and its Bush who should be locked away.

As for Kerry supporting the war, he did so based on information given to him by the administration, false information true, but Bush and company are still spewing forth lots of that.

I have to say I found the criticism leveled at Kerry over his Vietnam experience laughable when it was brougth about by two people who between them avoided going 5 times (Cheney) and bought their way into the National Guard Air wing and then didnt turn up (Bush)

Sorry for rambling but it is 4:30 am.

(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 2:33 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)

[Telerie]

Ross: "On top of all of this, the appropriation vote in question was not to fund some major new offensive, or increased production of bombs, but rather to maintain the forces currently occupying Iraq.  Do you have any idea how many fuel filters the military goes through in that environment (I do, I worked for a company that supplied them during Desert Storm)?  Do you suppose the thousands of soldiers need to continue to be fed, or maybe that they're wearing out standard equipment, or maybe their day-to-day living infrastructure needs to be continually improved and repaired?  That, my friends, is what was being appropriated."

Just a comment on this.

My younger brother ships out today for Kuwait and he will be in Iraq. He purchased all his body armour himself via online. There is also 2 boxes of MRE's waiting to be shipped to him once he is at his final destination. I was rather shocked (maybe Im naive) to hear that his unit's gear wasnt up to specc and because of that he felt the need to equip himself.

I may not agree with the war or the reasons we are there but I do believe that the soldiers who are there need to be taken care of.

Thats all Im goin to say on this subject. Its a rather sore subject at my house and Bolldar and I go round and round on this.

(Edited by Telerie at 2:34 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)

(Edited by Telerie at 2:37 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)

[Axecleaver]

I like your new title, Ross.

[Rosslyn]

haha, you rotten bastard!  Nice one.  

Maybe I can give you enough free crap salvage loot later to persuade you to change it to "At least my title isn't The Meggenizer"

[Caohmin]

lol, axe.

"I doubt you get the same news as we do and from what ive seen of  your medias actions they have been incrediably accomadating to the Bush administration or simple propaganda mouthpeices waving the flag"

This is untrue. American media has an extreme liberal bias.  

"and making jingoistic and bellicose statements in the case of Fox news (without doubt the worse news service in any major nation)"

Foxnews is one of the only news channels that could be called conservative.

[Rosslyn]

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled spewing of partisan crap.  

First, I'd like to address a pet peeve of mine:
"As regards the coalition of the willing, its a bit of a joke when 70% of the population of Britain and Australia and a large percentage of the Spanish and Italian populations were against the war."

Here's my question.  Did they (meaning the people who decided that "most people" were against it" call your house and ask you how you felt?  I didn't think so.  I'm also pretty sure that you probably didn't go to Italy and Spain and ask the majority of the people there how they felt.  One of the interesting byproducts of a free society, specifically those with "freedom of the press" as we've come to know it here, is how the vocal minority has been able to paint their views as originating with "most" of the people out there.  In reality, it's usually "most of the people who open their mouths on TV", or "most of the people who responded to our poll, which maybe isn't as scientific as we'd like you to believe".  Okay, I'll get off that subject now, but blatant generalizations usually elicit a similar response from me.  

Another gem:
"As for Kerry supporting the war, he did so based on information given to him by the administration, false information true, but Bush and company are still spewing forth lots of that."

The false part of this statement is the part that implies that the "Bush administration" distills the intelligence data prior to passing it along to the members of Congress who get to see it.  In reality, the intelligence data is presented by members of the intelligence community, which is considered to be more apolitical than your typical federal agency.  I'm not naive enough to say that politics can't and don't enter into anything, but the point is that the two "sides" both received the same information, and independently came to their own conclusions.  Was the information flawed?  It sure seems that way now.  What I don't understand, then, is how Kerry is considered by some to be an innocent victim of misinformation who is now on a crusade to right the wrongs (somehow, even by doing the same things we're doing now) inflicted on the poor, long-suffering Iraqi populace by George W. Bush.  Meanwhile, Bush is considered by those same people to be an evil disaster who should have known the information was bad and should have reacted differently, even though Congress authorized him to use force.  To me, it needs to be one way or the other.  Was the information bad, but from a credible source (i.e. the CIA)?  Okay then, both "sides" got burnt BY COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS and they need to move forward.  On the other hand, was the credibility of the information suspect enough that a different conclusion should have been reached?  That's up for debate as well, but the fact remains that both "sides" CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.  

This particular part of the overall debate baffles me.  It's like giving two kids the same word in a spelling bee, they both spell it correctly (or incorrectly, in this case), and then the Spelling Bee Panel People declare one of the kids the winner.  WTF?

btw, regarding the "kidnapping of people from neutral countries"...  do they have Iraqi or Afghan stamps in their passports?  How did they get there to be "kidnapped"?  Do you suppose the military just rounded up "neutral looking" people from some tourist area in Kabul, or is it possible they were acting aggressively (to put it lightly).  

"The US spends over half the worlds total military budget and we saw the result of that in Iraq, yup they were a big threat."

I'm guessing your reaction was the same when Clinton rained Tomahawks down on the empty Al-Qaeda camp, right?  I mean, after all, what could a bunch of backwoods extremists POSSIBLY do to the big, bad, U.S.A., right?  You may want to ask someone in NYC that question, or better yet I'll hook you up w/ my cousin who had to be helped out of the Pentagon after the offices just down the hall from him exploded.  I mean, there's no way that anyone could strike at the heart of the world's most fearsome military, right?  

[Lifesbane]

"you see someone that you know harbors intense ill will towards you, and they're standing nearby.  You watch the person give you dirty looks, take out a pistol, load it up with bullets, cock the hammer, and aim it at your face.  At what point does it become appropriate to react? "

the problem here is Iraq was at the the "you see someone that you know harbors intense ill will towards you" part. none of the other stuff happened. apparently it was assumed that the correct time to attack preemptively was "seeing someone you know harbors intense ill will towards you".

personally, if i was walking down the street and saw some kid that didnt like me, i wouldnt walk over to him and beat him to death with a bat because i assumed he would eventually go get a gun and come after me.

i do believe that attacking preemptively is, in some circumstances, the right thing to do.  however, in this particular instance, it was not justified.

"This is untrue. American media has an extreme liberal bias."

extreme liberal bias isnt quite true imo. theres a lot of bullshirt going on from both sides, its almost painfull if you really pay attention. i usually dont even watch the (network) news anymore because i feel like im just being pumped full of propaganda no matter which channel im watching. no matter where your watching, it isnt objective.

"Foxnews is one of the only news channels that could be called conservative."

heh yea...and tydd "could be called" a pain in the ass. it is what it is, and fox is conservative all the way.

btw, i agree that fox is about the worst network out there, not because im liberal, but their bias is just so blatent a lot of the time. i mean come on, put a little effort in and dont let me know when your brainwashing me.
/rude @ rupert murdock

(Edited by Lifesbane at 4:42 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)

[Rosslyn]

"extreme liberal bias isnt quite true imo"  hehe, watch CBS lately?

'the problem here is Iraq was at the the "you see someone that you know harbors intense ill will towards you" part. none of the other stuff happened."

I can appreciate your point, LB.  Obviously my little analogy trivializes the whole issue a bit, but I'd disagree that Iraq didn't do anything other than not like us.  There are many nations in that category.  Sometimes it's not an overt action that is threatening, but rather it can be words or the lack of an action.  For instance, publicly paying money to the families of suicide bombers.  In some circles, this is considered to be sponsoring terrorism.  Another issue would have been the years of less than full cooperation with arms inspectors.  I agree that none of these types of things by itself would likely warrant a military invasion, but I think Saddam's biggest mistake was to make his ego top priority.  When someone basically tells you "if you don't follow the rules NOW, we're going to invade you", you should probably take them seriously... especially if they've done it before.

hehe, yeah, Fox news sucks.  Not even worth watching, IMO.  To me that's one of the worst things about this year's campaign season:  I feel like I've lost even the illusion that I might be getting objective news.  I think the problems start when people report someone's statements as being fact, and then base other stories and commentary on those statements.  If somehow it turns out that the original statement was less than completely accurate, the house of cards can come tumbling down.  But, since that would look bad for the news agency, it's better to just support the original source until and unless it becomes painfully obvious that they're wrong.

On the bright side, we have all of this fun activity on the guild forums now.  And I'll even keep healing you poor, misinformed people    if I ever drag my sorry ass out to RvR again, hehe.