To set the record straight (and to hopefully reduce the number of inquiries I keep getting), I want to categorically declare that I am not MidTowner.

There have been repeated references and comments on threads implying or outright claiming that I was MidTowner "in disguise." In addition, I've received numerous Private Messages inquiring or even accusing me of being MidTowner.

It seems that for some it's meant as a compliment and for others it's meant as a criticism. In either case, from what I've gleaned from these comments, MidTowner may have a similar philosophy regarding discussions that I hold to — namely, if you're going to make a bold statement, be willing to back it up. I hope to have the opportunity to actually visit with MidTowner in the future to learn for myself what he brought to the discussion.

If my challenges of fellow members' comments raise some eyebrows, allow me to briefly explain where I'm coming from. No matter which side of the fence someone is on, if they make a questionable, outrageous or unsupportable claim, I will challenge that person. In our country today, there are talk radio shows and cable "news" shows that offer alot of commentary with little regard to how accurate it is; guest commentators are rarely challenged when they say something demonstrably false or misleading. Consequently, viewers (or listeners of talk radio) are left with the impression the information is correct, when in reality it is not.

Anyone can say anything about anything. Just because someone says it, doesn't make it true. If someone can provide some factual references, sources or historical evidence to back up what they say, it lends weight to their comment and argument. If someone wants to convince me of something, I'll listen to what they have to say and ask for corraborating "witnesses" or evidence to back it up. The more they are able to do that, the more credence I can give their viewpoint.

So, if that's what MidTowner was doing, then I applaud him. Insisting on factual support of an arguable position is good, reasoned debate. Ignoring facts is characteristic of weak positions and ignorant debate. My challenges are not meant to be personal attacks, but the expose the weakness of one's argument. A solid position can withstand challenges, because there is corraborating information that validates that position.

In conclusion, as I said in another thread earlier, as God as my witness, I am not MidTowner.

You ARE Midtowner aren't you? :lol2:

Scribe, You have a similar writing style to Midtowner and he was a stickler for facts.

Your posts have been enlightening and well thought out. I, for one welcome an educated discussion and/or debate.

As long as ideas are questioned and challenged (as opposed to specific individuals being challenged or insulted), I think most would welcome new posts and ideas.

I think the great thing about blogs and message boards is that people can express themselves, while still remaining civil and they just may influence others in a positive way.

Our world is filled with people who think and act differently from one another - that's the wonderful thing about diversity, can you imagine a world where we all felt and thought the same exact way? Boring!

Kindness and respect are what truly matter in my opinion.

Scribe, You have a similar writing style to Midtowner and he was a stickler for facts.

Your posts have been enlightening and well thought out. I, for one welcome an educated discussion and/or debate.

As long as ideas are questioned and challenged (as opposed to specific individuals being challenged or insulted), I think most would welcome new posts and ideas.

I think the great thing about blogs and message boards is that people can express themselves, while still remaining civil and they just may influence others in a positive way.

Our world is filled with people who think and act differently from one another - that's the wonderful thing about diversity, can you imagine a world where we all felt and thought the same exact way? Boring!

Kindness and respect are what truly matter in my opinion.
It doesn't matter what Scribe says, as far as I am concerned, he is MidTowner and he is back. I take a quote from mranderson:

If it walks like a MidTowner and talks like a MidTowner, it must be a MidTowner.

Too many similarities. The "intellectual" words that he uses in his posts, that half of the members don't understand anyway, the fact that he is on the forum alot during the day, and the fact that he feels you have to do research and present facts in order to make your post count. This is a message board, a forum with people giving their OPINIONS.

My challenges are not meant to be personal attacks, but the expose the weakness of one's argument.

MidTowner always liked to expose everyone's weaknesses, because it made him look better. He never, ever liked to be proven wrong.

This is defininitely the work of MidTowner.

Guys, seriously, from a moderator standpoint, I have a little more info. than most of you do. I seriously doubt scribe is Midtowner.

scribe, I apologize for the false accusations being made here.....your writing style simply resembles a past member of this forum.

It doesn't matter what Scribe says, as far as I am concerned, he is MidTowner and he is back. I take a quote from mranderson:

If it walks like a MidTowner and talks like a MidTowner, it must be a MidTowner.

Too many similarities. The "intellectual" words that he uses in his posts, that half of the members don't understand anyway, the fact that he is on the forum alot during the day, and the fact that he feels you have to do research and present facts in order to make your post count. This is a message board, a forum with people giving their OPINIONS.

My challenges are not meant to be personal attacks, but the expose the weakness of one's argument.

MidTowner always liked to expose everyone's weaknesses, because it made him look better. He never, ever liked to be proven wrong.

This is defininitely the work of MidTowner.

Of course, you probably still believe that there are vast stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, so no amount of evidence (DNA included) will convince you. If you want to continue in your misinformed delusion, that's entirely up to you. I am providing the moderators of this forum with as much personal information as they are requesting (short of my credit card numbers... wait... they got my premium... so even my financial info) to assure them that I'm not a previously banned member. However, at this point, I would pay money to get MidTowner back on the forum to stir things up again.

As far as being online alot, I'm "blessed" with a job in which I'm at the computer 12 to 16 hours a day. I happen to keep the web page open while working on other projects. While the computer is multitasking on other projects, I check in.

It's sad that you believe that there are so few "intellectual" people in this state that if someone happens to use "intellectual" words then it has to be the same person. I had given most of the people on this forum more credit than that. I hope no others took offense to that.

True, this is an opinion, discussion forum. Say whatever you want. I will challenge those comments that are unsupportable, misinformed or just plain ignorant. If someone wants to talk like a fool, act like a fool and look like a fool, that's entirely up to them. But remember, discussion is a two-way street. If you say something, expect a response.

He wasn't saying he wanted to expose everyone's weakness. The quote was to expose the weakness of the argument, which is the whole point of exploring other viewpoints and ideas.

If an argument and/or opinion is offensive to anyone, they have a right to dispute it and offer their opposing opinion. That is the beauty of discussions.

By the way, in my opinion, it's demoralizing and insulting to imply that only half of the members comprehend 'big, intellectual' words? What do you think we are - a group of illiterates?

Guys, seriously, from a moderator standpoint, I have a little more info. than most of you do. I seriously doubt scribe is Midtowner.

scribe, I apologize for the false accusations being made here.....your writing style simply resembles a past member of this forum.
Thank you, Patrick and to the other moderators, for giving me the benefit of the doubt and a fair "hearing." It's unfortunate that people will draw untenable conclusions from such scant "evidence." I suppose I shouldn't be surprised; it's that same standard that got us into the Iraq war.

Hotsoss,

If you don't understand a word, try a dictionary

As for Scribe, I like your writing style and. I value everyone's contributions to the site, even the ones i dont agree with

Unfortunately, in intelegence work, scant evidence is all you have at times. At that point you have to work from personality profiles and past behavior. You add that to the evidence you have and generate an estimate from it.

In the case of Iraq, Saddam fooled everyone, this was a huge mistake but it was a conclusion reached independently by the intelligence agencies of every major power. The fact is that when every agency agreed on a conclusion they had always been right before so the major world leaders accepted the info as accurate.

It's nice to look back in history at world leaders past actions and point out their mistakes. Yet we need to be honest about the difference between bad decisions made with faulty info that was percieved to be accurate and really bad decisions that were made in the face of conflicting accurate data.

It's so easy, after the fact, to second guess decisions.

Unfortunately, in intelegence work, scant evidence is all you have at times. At that point you have to work from personality profiles and past behavior. You add that to the evidence you have and generate an estimate from it.

In the case of Iraq, Saddam fooled everyone, this was a huge mistake but it was a conclusion reached independently by the intelligence agencies of every major power. The fact is that when every agency agreed on a conclusion they had always been right before so the major world leaders accepted the info as accurate.

It's nice to look back in history at world leaders past actions and point out their mistakes. Yet we need to be honest about the difference between bad decisions made with faulty info that was percieved to be accurate and really bad decisions that were made in the face of conflicting accurate data.

It's so easy, after the fact, to second guess decisions.

Perhaps if you would like to continue and expand upon this discussion, we could begin a new thread. I'll refrain from commenting here for fear of the "Back To Topic" police.

Okay guys, let's drop this topic now. Scribe, if I haven't told you already, we welcome you to OKC Talk. Thanks for your participation here. We enjoy having you around! Thanks also for supporting this site.

I think those of you that accused Scribe of being Midtowner, owe Scribe an apology.

Thank you, Patrick and to the other moderators, for giving me the benefit of the doubt and a fair "hearing." It's unfortunate that people will draw untenable conclusions from such scant "evidence." I suppose I shouldn't be surprised; it's that same standard that got us into the Iraq war.
After getting a brow beating from one of the moderators, which I richly deserved, I am convinced that you are NOT MidTowner. So, my apologies go out to you and to the other members on this forum.