Dovster:
"Today, an OMNI post was edited by the mods because a poster had referred to
IJK (another poster) as 'Islamic Jihad Kid'. I would be furious if someone were to
imply that I support Islamic Jihad."


This is not the first time that my sequential three-letter 'FT handle' has been
referred to in this way.


See:

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/018283.html
(middle of page 5)

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/018405.html
(page 1)


In both cases, this was done by a poster that is presently not posting in OMNI
(probably due to several TOS violations), so I am curious if this poster is using
multiple handles to recently repeat the use of this very particular phrase - - or,
the recent misuse of my handle by a poster with another handle was inherited as
learned behavior?


I basically ignored the reference - - I initially said "Very funny.", which it was,
in a way (showed some cleverness), and ignored it subsequently. However,
the non-response dictated by the FT TOS to type of thing may have implied that
I accepted this 'name' as somehow being representative, or even complementary.

I wish to indicate that this is not the case.


Dovster:
"I do not know how IJK feels about this. He has consistently taken a pro-Arab position
on every Israeli-Arab thread. I don't recall him ever condemning Arab terrorism. It is
possible that he would not see being identified with Islamic Jihad as an insult."


Well, I do find it troubling that this particular poster has chosen to ignore my
repeated statements lamenting the grip of the extremists in the Middle East in
prolonging and escalating the violence - - on both sides. There is no need to
characterize (or mis-characterize) my, or anyone else's, position, thoughts and/or
'who we really are'. (See the attempt at 'character assassination by implication'
of ChaseTheMiles by the same poster in the first thread above.)

And my supposed "pro-Arab position" has been characterized here only for the sake of
making the rhetorical argument of "what if they like what they are called - - is it OK
to call them something bad because they might like it?" (paraphrased), even though the
whole FT community would naturally interpret the label as offensive and in bad taste.

If the use of a label found offensive by the FT community is used as an "in" joke, then
it should not be used in this private manner in a public forum, or the subtext should be
explained for the benefit of all.


It is also interesting to note the subtle shift in context here, and in other posts by
the same person. I supposedly have "a pro-Arab position on every Israeli-Arab thread."

Well, I have a "pro-Palestinian" position in general (not universally), and a critical
position of Sharon and his career - - not a "pro-Arab" position, which would imply that
I support all sorts of other things, including potentially the attacks om 9/11. Personally,
I find this (possibly implied) extension as repugnant tactic, even if it may not have been
used deliberately here. If the term "Palestinian" is automatically thought of as "Arab"
by someone else, I am sorry, but that is a problem with whoever does this on a regular
basis.

As for all the "Israeli-Arab" threads, I do not recall participating in any discussions
regarding Israel and the Arab states, or the Arab world. But I do recall many threads
about the Israeli-Palestinian battle happening in the Middle East at the present though...


Dovster:
"Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that IJK does not see it as insulting.
The poster obviously meant it as an insult -- so is that enough to make it a flame?"


If the intent to insult is obvious to anyone (even though it was not interpreted as such
by the target), then why desacrate the FT community with what appear to be blazen and
obvious insults? If this is supposedly OK, posters will start to think that it is OK to start
flaming away...


Dovster:
"If IJK is proud of this identification, is it still a flame?"


Yes, to everyone else it is.

But why argue about hypthetical, rhetorical philosophic arguments? This is equivalent
to asking: "If a tree falls in the forest, but no-one is around to hear it, does it make
a sound?" Or perhaps this is just a way to subtly further malign someone's character
in the name of legitimate dabate about a valid question?

We should first discuss "What is a flame?" in a regular context, and then (if ever) discuss
special, rare or convoluted cases or arguments, without impuning any member's inner beliefs.


And at the present time, I am simply not going to respond to what ap2110 had to say.
.


[This message has been edited by IJK (edited Jan 23, 2004).]