Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
- Thread starter
- #41
Where are the documented cases of the trashing o returning troops from the 'nam?Thank you for your service.
Not all, certainly not a great minorty, but unfortunately a signficant number of Vietnam viets' homecoming were trashed. That you don't like it means nothing. The events happened, get over it.
Once again, thank you for your service.
-The Spitting Image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement. Lembcke writes that this discrediting of the anti-war movement was foreshadowed by Hermann Goring's fostering of the stab in the back myth, after Germany's defeat in Europe in 1918.[1]
Wikipedia is not considered a reliabe source. The Spitting Image is written by a pro-commie freak who has been debunked by Robert Turner. All of that has been posted in another thread. In this forum plenty of evidence has been provided that the spitting occurred and that occurred a lot more than what we would like to think.
Whether you deny it, whether you think black is white, whatever you think on the merits of this is clear -- you have no idea what you are talking about or you are deliberately falsifying on this subject. Your opinion has no relevance.
If you don't like Vietnam vets, that's your right, and I don't think six people in the universe care what you think on the subject.
wikipedia is reliable when backed up by other sources.
what exactly do you find wrong with the wikipedia article?
I won't hold my breath waiting, but it would be nice to see trolls like you make factual statements to refute a wiki article rather than say the whole site is unreliable. (I hope you don't use personal and anonymous blogs as sources to back up ypur facts )
-www.guardian.co.ukUnwillingness to entertain the notion that Wikipedia might fly is a symptom of what the legal scholar James Boyle calls "cultural agoraphobia" - our prevailing fear of openness. Like all phobias it's irrational, so is immune to evidence. I'm tired of listening to brain-dead dinner-party complaints about how "inaccurate" Wikipedia is. I'm bored to death by endless accounts of slurs or libels suffered by a few famous individuals at the hands of Wikipedia vandals. And if anyone ever claims again that all the entries in Wikipedia are written by clueless amateurs, I will hit them over the head with a list of experts who curate material in their specialisms. And remind them of Professor Peter Murray-Rust's comment to a conference in Oxford: "The bit of Wikipedia that I wrote is correct."
Of course Wikipedia has flaws, of course it has errors: show me something that doesn't. Of course it suffers from vandalism and nutters who contribute stuff to it. But instead of complaining about errors, academics ought to be in there fixing them. Wikipedia is one of the greatest inventions we have. Isn't it time we accepted it? Microsoft has.