[rlmorel]

I did not attack any specific person personally which is required to meet the precise definition of ad hominem, but you specifically attacked me, and I quote: "But being thoughtful and reasonable is too much for FR these days. The inmates have taken over the asylum and irrationality reigns. Congratulate yourself."

You can say that wasn't directed at me personally, but in my opinion that would be pretty close to a "...what the meaning of "is" is..." statement. What then would I be congratulating myself for?

What "overwhelming evidence" do I have? Well, it may not be overwhelming for some, but as Ann Coulter is fond of saying, there are people for whom even a shocking level of evidence will not be enough.

1.) I personally have met the people who were at the Vietnam Memorial that morning and who saw the vandalism with their own eyes. These are people who have been there many times and seen the wall in all conditions.

2.) The Park Service was close mouthed about whether it was vandalism or not. That is fine for them, they have a public relations face they have to maintain. But there is not a large body of people who would have been on the job the night it happened, and even a somewhat incompetent organization such as the Park Service can look at a schedule, find out who was on, and query them about what kinds of tasks they performed in maintaining the wall. If it had been an accident in equipment or technique, they would not have been clammed up as long as they were. It would have come out pretty quickly due to the national and international status of the monument.

3.) The talk about a lawnmower or weed cutter spraying oil was completely disconnected from fact. I am no crime detective, but even I could take one look at the undulating sine wave pattern of the damaging substance and see that someone had walked parallel to the wall with a squeeze or spray bottle held at waist level (trying to semi-conceal it) that directed a stream of the corrosive substance at the wall. As they walked parallel to the wall and sprayed the stream, they used an up and down motion to cover as much as they could. See this image that I Photoshopped to highlight was was easily visible:

4.) If this had been an improperly trained Park Service employee using an inappropriate substance by mistake, they would not have sprayed such a large area in that fashion and left it to sit on the surface. Even if they had been stupid enough to select the wrong cleaning solution, they would not have walked the entire length of just those damaged sections spraying the wall, and left it there to penetrate. They would have gone back and either wiped it off at some point or washed it off, neither of which was done.

5.) The clincher for me was this picture showing a clearly scored and defaced wall which is clear vandalism, unless it was this completely incompetent Park Service Employee who was trying to use a screwdriver to clean the wall. And I personally knew the source of these images, so I am confident they were not Photoshopped for effect.

The bottom line is there was plenty of compelling evidence to come to a firm and speedy conclusion with a high degree of accuracy that it was indeed vandalism. In my opinion, you do an injustice to those who wanted quick action on this while the trail was still hot, not waiting until weeks later for some bureaucracy to finally issue forth a proclamation.

Lastly, I have shot myself in the foot many times before, and I have no illusions that the most recent time I did it will be the last. I am human and make as many mistakes as anyone else.

I try to be as thoughtful and considerate as I can in my postings towards others, even when I disagree. I readily admit that I fell short in that standard by calling people "dorks" who held out for a week or more maintaining that it still might not be vandalism, and were often vociferous and acid in their condemnation of those who, in their opinion, were "jumping to conclusions". For that I apologize, not for my opinion of them, but for my having the rudeness to write with words what I thought of their opinion. That is what your reply to me conveyed.

[Bob J]

Well, you seem like you can be a reasoned person so I will respond reasonably.

"I did not attack any specific person personally..."

You called the people (2 or 3, one of which was me) who posited reasonable alternative possibilities to this incident on the original thread as "dorks". Just because you don't call us out personally by name doesn't make your name calling unspecific, so don't even go there, it is a weak and indefensible position.

"...which is required to meet the precise definition of ad hominem..."

I don't think you know what the definition of ad hominem is, so let me help.

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Which is quite funny and ironic since the reasonable people on that thread were under constant ad hominem attack from the mob.

"...but you specifically attacked me, and I quote: "But being thoughtful and reasonable is too much for FR these days. The inmates have taken over the asylum and irrationality reigns. Congratulate yourself." Quite the opposite I was making a generalised statement about how the quality of discussion on FR has reached the level of "Lord of the Flies", this incident being an example. That you carried this name calling over to a thread weeks later is more evidence of what I claim.

"What then would I be congratulating myself for?"

For helping to make FR at least some of what it's critics claim it to be.

"What "overwhelming evidence" do I have? Well, it may not be overwhelming for some, but as Ann Coulter is fond of saying, there are people for whom even a shocking level of evidence will not be enough."

It's not overwhelming except for the most jaded or those with an agenda...both of whom who could care a lick about the truth.

"1.) I personally have met the people who were at the Vietnam Memorial that morning and who saw the vandalism with their own eyes. These are people who have been there many times and seen the wall in all conditions."

...and the people who started the hysteria and led the attack on those trying to be reasonable. If you're trying to establish your credibility based on these associations, you're out of luck. You just became one more member of the mob.

"2.) The Park Service was close mouthed about whether it was vandalism or not."

They were not closed mouthed, they wanted to get all the facts in before making a determination so as not to egg on the mob mentality that was beginning to take shape over this incident. I personally called and discussed it with them, did you?

"But there is not a large body of people who would have been on the job the night it happened, and even a somewhat incompetent organization such as the Park Service can look at a schedule, find out who was on, and query them about what kinds of tasks they performed in maintaining the wall. If it had been an accident in equipment or technique, they would not have been clammed up as long as they were. It would have come out pretty quickly due to the national and international status of the monument." Uhhhm, whatever you say Inspector Clouseau.

"3.) The talk about a lawnmower or weed cutter spraying oil was completely disconnected from fact. I am no crime detective, but even I could take one look at the undulating sine wave pattern of the damaging substance and see that someone had walked parallel to the wall with a squeeze or spray bottle held at waist level (trying to semi-conceal it) that directed a stream of the corrosive substance at the wall. As they walked parallel to the wall and sprayed the stream, they used an up and down motion to cover as much as they could."

ON the contrary, someone squirting from somewhat of a 90 degree angle would have produced much more splattering and would have been a much better shot. These looked like drips from someone walking along the top of the wall without the good angle to direct a stream. This would also explain the 90-95% of the substance that ended up on the curbs and sidewalk. A leaky edger from the grass extending partially over the wall would also have explained it reasonably particularly with reports of how the wind was blowing/swirling that weekend.

"4.) If this had been an improperly trained Park Service employee using an inappropriate substance by mistake, they would not have sprayed such a large area in that fashion and left it to sit on the surface."

If they were on the top of the wall they probably wouldn't have noticed it at all.

"Even if they had been stupid enough to select the wrong cleaning solution, they would not have walked the entire length of just those damaged sections spraying the wall, and left it there to penetrate."

If they were edging the grass on top of the wall it would have extended the length of the grass, which was pretty much the length of the wall and the damage area.

"5.) The clincher for me was this picture showing a clearly scored and defaced wall which is clear vandalism..."

Has this etching been tied directly to the oily substance? These scratches could have been made anytime. People are constantly rubbing items over paper on the wall to take back impressions to their home. Could someone have used a utensil, pen, key, who knows, to do this and accidentally scratched the surface? Funny, I don't remember the original reports, with plenty of photos and video, mentioning this scoring at all.

"And I personally knew the source of these images, so I am confident they were not Photoshopped for effect."

I've never questioned the authenticity of the photos.

I'm sorry, this is the second time you've said this and I just don't get the correlation between you knowing the people who made the reports (the ones who incited the mob) and how that has anything to do with the facts.

"The bottom line is there was plenty of compelling evidence to come to a firm and speedy conclusion with a high degree of accuracy that it was indeed vandalism."

I disagree. First a vandal would more likely use a can of spray paint and the location of most of the spots would indicate that this was a very incompetent or extremely drunk vandal. In fact, the photos pointed to it being an accident or some religious idiots consecrating the wall with their holy ointment.

"In my opinion, you do an injustice to those who wanted quick action on this while the trail was still hot..."

And what action would that be? Did the hysteria, torchs and axes move the efforts of the Park Police any quicker? On the contrary and IMHO after talking to the Park Police, the mob that quickly organized screaming and shouting for an resolution compelled the Park Police to take a slower, more methodical approach to make sure they got it right the first time. Such are in unintended consequences of actions that are not thought out nor contemplated by reasonable people.

"...not waiting until weeks later for some bureaucracy to finally issue forth a proclamation."

Uhhh, you mean conduct a thorough and competent investigation? Why was it necessary, nay critical, for the mob to have action and an answer so quickly? Was there something else going on that weekend that a quick, even if incorrect, answer would have facilitated?

When the truth is subjugated to the needs of the mob we become no better than the shrieking, hysterical libs.

"Lastly, I have shot myself in the foot many times before, and I have no illusions that the most recent time I did it will be the last."

Don't worry about it, it happens to all of us. ;-}. BTW - Sorry about the Clouseau comment.