Hey tw, can I ask a favor of you?

Can you sum up your major points in one line each for us please? I think there is a bigger problem with your rambling on for a page without concretely saying exactly what you think (or, more correctly, EVERYTHING you think without making major points clear) than the actual content, which, for me, is very hard to get to... Like wading through the sewer for the ring you dropped down it.

Pretty please state your major points youre yelling at everyone about in one line each?

Well, UT can't be right - he made a typo! Case closed.

Unless tw mentions me (Brianna) in EVERY SINGLE post he makes-I won't be reading it. I enjoy envisioning him, in a greasy, dingy, smelly old T-shirt, McDonald french fries in his unkempt beard, ancient aquarium with algea and dead fish floating belly up by his computer, numerous conspiracy rags by his 1970's barcalounger and 14 day-old chili in his one and only pot on the stove, growing penicillin--thinking of ways to weave 'Brianna' and 'grasp' into one coherent sentence. It's like nectar.

I know tw wants me. He wants to EDUCATE and CONTROL me. I am so hott for him right now...I'm prolly gonna touch myself...

No.

Ouch. The sharp sting of the one-word reply.

The response was blunt, honest, and direct to the point. This time, I did not 'confuse' an issue with reality of underlying facts. A simpler answer - without supporting facts - was provided. Previous post was already soundbyted down into an executive summary. When asked for an even simpler response, one was provided. No ouch. That is silly emotion. Just the bottom line without any reasons provided - or what happens when we "sum up major points in one line".

Well, it's not so much stinging as a very literal reply to the actual question.

It's not that he won't ...it's that, being tw, he can't, which is what the questioner asked.

My comment wasn't really intended as a criticism.

It was not taken to be criticism. My answer provided underlying details so that the answer was obvious to others. "No" was the honest answer to Ibram (short answer provided somewhat facetiously) because this 'cleanse Lebanon' war is so complex AND is so confused by intentional myths and blantant half truths (such as Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or Hezbollah attacked first).

Same thing happening on a greater scale in Darfur does not get such attention, in part, because Darfur does not involve so many parties, is not so complex, and would not drag in the entire world. This Israel cleansing war - part of America's intention to fix the Middle East whether they like it or not - is that complex.

tw, nobody can tell what you're trying to say because you wont state clearly what you think. When UT tried to get you to clarify, you responded with a LONGER, MUDDIER post. The problem isn't so much the length as the clarity. I quite liked the one-word post... If you had posted a page and a half about why longer posts were better or something, I would probably not care enough to read it all, and therefore guess at the content. At least now I know exactly how you feel about making a concise and clear post on your position.

Well, he's got to pick those fries out of his beard. That takes time.

I'm glad others feel this way - I thought I had ADD.

You want a 'yes or no' answer. I gave one - "No.". It did not tell you much which is why you are back again asking the same questions.

You want details (clarity). Then yes, the deeper you dive for details, the muddier it gets. Welcome to the Middle East. There are no 'yes and no' answers which is what you are asking for. Those answers were as clear as possible because the situation is chock full of perspectives and the Cellar is no place to post a book. You think there are only two parties involved? You don't have enough fingers and toes in your family to count the parties involved. How do you describe that in terms of 'yes and no'?

Which do you want? A better comprehension or shorter posts? They are mutually exclusive. Provided was an executive summary. You complain that it is not detailed enough (too short) AND complained the answer is too long. You want clarity? The short answer was "No". Underlying facts to that answer include "I will not set new records for longer posts". You want a shorter answer? Then you don't want clarity. Why do you keep asking for what is obviously impossible?

As if it were not complex enough, we have some here falsely claiming that Hezbollah attacked first. Then others blindly believe that nonsense. So who was really muddying the waters? Welcome to the Middle East where there is so much more than sand, sun, and precious water. And yet even that can make muddy water.

tw, you misunderstand what I want. I want you to post a short overview of what you think, in list form. For example, if I were to do the same, it would look like this.

Both sides are equally to blame.
The root of the problem lies too far back to fix or to lay blame.
Both sides keep the feud going by hitting back.
It will only end when one side gives up or is annihilated.
The US and everyone else should stay the hell out of it.

I'm more put off by the incoherency of tw's posts. I'm perfectly fine with lots of suporting detail, in fact I prefer a detailed argument to a stand alone statement. However, your posts often try to bring up multiple issues and side arguments without resolving the first thing you talked about. Instead of the rambling half-page that you post try making only 1-2 points per post. Say something, support it with evidence, bring up an angle that people might not know about, but make sure it all coalesces into one coherent post. If your counterpoints negate your original point then either say that and prove both are useful anyway or don't post either.