[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?

So being in a bad metal position means you can't articulate your feelings? He signed up for the service which is a rational and honorable thing, then walks unarmed into a dangerous situation which is a very irrational thing.

Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."

You're just making that up. His peers certainly were critical of him as a deserter and had suspicions about his later actions that don't appear to have merit according to the military. This doesn't go nearly as far as some in the media who were quick to take this to an extreme and personal place.

Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?

Little is known about the "truth" so how could those think they're speaking to it?

The event became politicized overnight in an attempt not to understand but to attack. Malicious, malignant and spiteful all seem to fit.

-spence