 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Richard
Ensign
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 53
Location: Gainesville, FL
|
 Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 3:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Craig wrote: | I would suggest that you wait as fast as you can.
I know some folks who would consider themselves conservatives and folks who would consider themselves liberal.
I'd just make a guess that the most of either would consider you as being a smart ass kid who thinks he has it just all figured out.
Thank you for the amusement. Shame this thing does not have killfile like Usenet clients.
Well, silly pup - what is it that you figure to present to make myself or some others to be as your plaything?
My own greatest problem of the moment is to pull a string to try to discover if you be a pull toy or just a duck on a leash.
|
Craig, 
I'm just crushed with that brilliant response to my points. So far, in just one day and in a few threads you have said:
- Even people on site and those whom you would support do not subscribe to the crap you are arguing in their defense.
- See above about dismissing your nonsense.
- Sh*t. Let me take a moment to look back at the start of your rant.
- WTF you talking about?
- I'd just make a guess that the most of either would consider you as being a smart ass kid who thinks he has it just all figured out.
- My own greatest problem of the moment is to pull a string to try to discover if you be a pull toy or just a duck on a leash.
Am I seeing a pattern here? CRAP, NONESENSE, RANT, SH*T, WTF, SMART ASS KID. You can't respond logically, so you respond with epithets and condesencion. If you don't have any replies to all three of the questions I posed about the article you posted, let's try just one.
With all the debate about bad intelligence leading to bad decisions, and so on, why do you believe the intelligence cited in this article was actionable? What makes these two sets of intelligence data different. Why is one believable and the other not?
Try to reply without epithets or foul language if you can.
Richard
_________________
The Public View |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fortdixlover wrote: | | Craig wrote: | | You do not debate with liberals and malcontents. |
At last, a quote from a liberal malcontent I can agree with. You do not debate with liberals and malcontents, as they do not understand the basic rules of debate.
snip gibberish
|
Cute but no score.
Resorting to BS catches you only negative points.
If you had any argument at all you would present it in relation to what was said instead of dishonestly discharacterizing to build your self a strawman to argue at.
I did not come to win but I came to play. It is you who makes you loser.
LOL "malcontent" - I suppose that you have heard that word uttered a lot by others superior to yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DevilDon
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 102
Location: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is really, really good material fortdix, made my day. Thank you, I'll be using this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Richard"] | Craig wrote: | [b] . . . If you don't have any replies to all three of the questions I posed about the article you posted, let's try just one.
With all the debate about bad intelligence leading to bad decisions, and so on, why do you believe the intelligence cited in this article was actionable? What makes these two sets of intelligence data different. Why is one believable and the other not?
Try to reply without epithets or foul language if you can.
Richard |
Excuse me for a moment until i can quit laughing.
...
...
Okay. In your "just one" you neglected question mark in the second sentence. So I am a bit off balance whether that is one or two or three questions.
Looking at the first you make an assumption in your question so we should deal with that statement before it becomes a valid question.
That is like the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" contains the imposed statement that one has beaten ones wife. How the hell could one answer a question asked by such an idiot?
You ask why I believe something. I wonder what you base your assumption what I might believe.
Your second statement of question or whatever you think it might be is nonsense since it is based on unwarranted assumptions made in your first sentence which is BS.
Your third?
I would suggest that you go back to junior high or whatever grade they do the very most basic of philosophy and do some remedial work.
Then come back and see if you can ask questions that are not just accusations disguised with a question mark at the end. (I assume that the second sentence was just a carelessness.)
Gosh but I do get a kick out of the arrogant without cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DevilDon
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 102
Location: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 5:58 am Post subject: Arrogance |
|
|
Arrogance? You're a veritable fountain of arrogance:
You implore us to wait while you stop laughing. Why? Can't you formulate a response while laughing? And were the questions that funny? You really have a weird sense of humor for an intellectual.
Second, I believe he was offering you a choice of which question you'd feel best able to make an argument for or against. He wasn't posing one question to you, merely making it agreeable to you that you might choose and respond. You didn't respond. That you were off balance as a result of the incorrect punctuation speaks volumes about you. I certainly understood it and I'd be willing to take a vote on how many others did as well. And a quick aside to you, wouldn't you think a comma following "Okay' would be more appropriate? I mean, "Okay" isn't a real sentence is it? With the whole "noun" and "verb" thing and all.
Next, did he make an assumption, question or statement? You seem to think all three. In calling it a question, don't you already cause it to be a "valid question" at least to yourself?
Your reference to the question as similar to the classic example is totally off the mark. He in no way implies you'd have or did take action. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're the type of person who doesn't take action of any sort outside the realm of blathering. The assumption can be made by anybody on this post that you agreed with the article you proffered because you lacked any sarcasm in your words surrounding the post.
Who is the idiot you refer to, the person who asks the wife beating question or the person who offered you several opportunities to expound on your ideas?
His second "statement of question" (lol, that is really funny stuff, did you make that up, or did you ask for a professor's help?) refers to the two known intelligence reports which we are all aware. It in no way reflects back to his original question. He simply referred to the intelligence data that said there were WMD and the intelligence data that said "your boy" was in Iraq. He asked what you thought the difference might be between the two. It is in fact, not based on any assumptions. It is a fairly straighforward question.
Third.....it's ironic you suggest he research basic philosophical ideas. Is this the basis of your arguments? I'd have thought you'd bring hard, cold fact to this board, but it does serve to illuminate the color of your discourse here. Perhaps we might all explore the mind of elementary or junior high students to better exchange with our brother Craig.
You also suggest those sentences with a question mark are accusations. So (follow with me Craig) Richard posed a question that wasn't a question because it was based on an assumption, but it wasn't an assumption without merit as I've detailed for you. Then it becomes a statement, based on an assumption cleverly disguised as a question because he had a question mark at the end of it. Finally, it becomes an invalid question because you've dealt with it and you've shown it to be baseless because it implies an assumption of your beliefs. Yet, you leave us with no indication to show that you posted your original post as being sarcastic.
And finally, in what way do you get a kick out of the arrogant without a cause? I might tell you that arrogance in and of itself is a terrible thing. I might tell you that arrogance WITH a cause is every bit as destructive as any other arrogance. I will also convey that arrogance by it's nature defies logic and in and of itself fuels illogical act, reason and thought. It seems to me that the more fearful of the two might be arrogance with a cause as it is probable to expect action in the case of cause. By the very nature of arrogance, those afflicted won't be able to evaluate thier own arrogance.
Okay, then......arrogance (simple-minded misunderstanding of your own shortcomings) impels simple-minded acts of belief that one's own actions are accordingly large when in fact they are misguided and misjudged because the arrogant cannot possibly evaluate their own misgivings. Arrogance also lends itself to large actions that deny basic human tenets of rights we all agree on: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sounds alot like 9/11 to me. I can tell you this comrade, I don't get a kick out of your thinking at all.
Sleep soundly knowing the sons and daughters of freedom protect the gates of liberty across the land. Sleep soundly and dream as you slumber and ignore the stories of the men and women who've given thier only lives to give you the freedom to read and say what you want. Enjoy your dream while daughters and sons of the American people sleep in holes in the ground. Dream as you will of the snapping sound of the National Standard as it waves to the Vets who've caused it to be free.
Arrogant without a cause? Freedom is it's own cause. I pity the American who doesn't understand what he's fighting for. Be it journalist or antagonist, it's what allows us to post freely here.
I Love America, do what you feel best Craid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 6:53 am Post subject: Re: Arrogance |
|
|
| DevilDon wrote: | Arrogance? You're a veritable fountain of arrogance:
You implore us to wait while you stop laughing. Why? Can't you formulate a response while laughing? And were the questions that funny? You really have a weird sense of humor for an intellectual.
Second, I believe he was offering you a choice of which question you'd feel best able to make an argument for or against. He wasn't posing one question to you, merely making it agreeable to you that you might choose and respond. You didn't respond. That you were off balance as a result of the incorrect punctuation speaks volumes about you. I certainly understood it and I'd be willing to take a vote on how many others did as well. And a quick aside to you, wouldn't you think a comma following "Okay' would be more appropriate? I mean, "Okay" isn't a real sentence is it? With the whole "noun" and "verb" thing and all.
Next, did he make an assumption, question or statement? You seem to think all three. In calling it a question, don't you already cause it to be a "valid question" at least to yourself?
Your reference to the question as similar to the classic example is totally off the mark. He in no way implies you'd have or did take action. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're the type of person who doesn't take action of any sort outside the realm of blathering. The assumption can be made by anybody on this post that you agreed with the article you proffered because you lacked any sarcasm in your words surrounding the post.
Who is the idiot you refer to, the person who asks the wife beating question or the person who offered you several opportunities to expound on your ideas?
His second "statement of question" (lol, that is really funny stuff, did you make that up, or did you ask for a professor's help?) refers to the two known intelligence reports which we are all aware. It in no way reflects back to his original question. He simply referred to the intelligence data that said there were WMD and the intelligence data that said "your boy" was in Iraq. He asked what you thought the difference might be between the two. It is in fact, not based on any assumptions. It is a fairly straighforward question.
Third.....it's ironic you suggest he research basic philosophical ideas. Is this the basis of your arguments? I'd have thought you'd bring hard, cold fact to this board, but it does serve to illuminate the color of your discourse here. Perhaps we might all explore the mind of elementary or junior high students to better exchange with our brother Craig.
You also suggest those sentences with a question mark are accusations. So (follow with me Craig) Richard posed a question that wasn't a question because it was based on an assumption, but it wasn't an assumption without merit as I've detailed for you. Then it becomes a statement, based on an assumption cleverly disguised as a question because he had a question mark at the end of it. Finally, it becomes an invalid question because you've dealt with it and you've shown it to be baseless because it implies an assumption of your beliefs. Yet, you leave us with no indication to show that you posted your original post as being sarcastic.
And finally, in what way do you get a kick out of the arrogant without a cause? I might tell you that arrogance in and of itself is a terrible thing. I might tell you that arrogance WITH a cause is every bit as destructive as any other arrogance. I will also convey that arrogance by it's nature defies logic and in and of itself fuels illogical act, reason and thought. It seems to me that the more fearful of the two might be arrogance with a cause as it is probable to expect action in the case of cause. By the very nature of arrogance, those afflicted won't be able to evaluate thier own arrogance.
Okay, then......arrogance (simple-minded misunderstanding of your own shortcomings) impels simple-minded acts of belief that one's own actions are accordingly large when in fact they are misguided and misjudged because the arrogant cannot possibly evaluate their own misgivings. Arrogance also lends itself to large actions that deny basic human tenets of rights we all agree on: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sounds alot like 9/11 to me. I can tell you this comrade, I don't get a kick out of your thinking at all.
Sleep soundly knowing the sons and daughters of freedom protect the gates of liberty across the land. Sleep soundly and dream as you slumber and ignore the stories of the men and women who've given thier only lives to give you the freedom to read and say what you want. Enjoy your dream while daughters and sons of the American people sleep in holes in the ground. Dream as you will of the snapping sound of the National Standard as it waves to the Vets who've caused it to be free.
Arrogant without a cause? Freedom is it's own cause. I pity the American who doesn't understand what he's fighting for. Be it journalist or antagonist, it's what allows us to post freely here.
I Love America, do what you feel best Craid. |
It is good to have someone who would explain what the person could not explain on his own.
You certainly did say a lot of stuff and i wonder if you are setting that last part to music.
I am wondering how many gates of liberty across the land there might be though. Are they evenly spaced?
Sleeping in holes in the ground is generally not so bad if it isn't raining.
Maybe my worst time was finding myself gone to the field one time in the winter and all that stinking supply clerk had for me a sleeping bag was a receipt. That receipt did not keep my toes nor none of the rest of me warm at all. I was ready for a shooting war then by golly. Very bad mood.
Sleeping in a tent was not always so great either when the lieutenants driver was a complete idiot. F*cking Coleman lantern kept blowing out his match he said later - after he opened the fill cap to relieve the pressure so it would not blow out the match, So it sprayed all over the place and on the heater and on my head.
I was his radio operator but my stinking radio was not transmitting a hundred yards. Well, most of the time it did not transmit at all until i got extra batteries for the remote and kept set in my pocket to exchange for the cold ones now and again.
Lucky the message center was only about fifty feet away and that was about only place we needed to talk to. I usually just walked over to do whatever radio talking was necessary after I discovered where they were.
You ever wake up and only can see fire?
I didn't need any medical - had a few blisters and imprint of zipper on my cheek.
Next night when that same a**hole stepped on my head the Lt' called me off going after him with bayonet and kept the punk plumb away from me after that.
My goodness what memories. You ever been where it was so cold that 80 or 90 proof carried in field pant pocket would have crystals that swirled around like one of the snow castle things? Pretty cool I thought. Dangerous to try to drink something that cold. I've heard of people getting really messed up drinking too cold of whiskey.
Would you believe that I discovered that I was being carried on the books as crypto chief and was in charge of crypto machines that I did not have the clearance to go in the room they were kept?
I was licensed to drive a couple APC's that I'd never been in one when it was running. I installed some of them new fangled transistor radios in some tracks and an M 60 tank.
Some drunk stole that tank once and headed for town. Drove over a TR(4?) on the way to the gate. Right across the engine.
Did you know that M60 only has about eleven pounds pr square inch on the ground? Seems like that should not hurt to run over ones toe. but then I guess that it would be eleven pounds pr square inch after toe was even with the ground.
Some Sergeant caught up with the tank and kicked his way down the hatch and got it stopped before it ran over any Germans. There was suspicion that the Sarge went ahead and kicked him some more before getting him out of the tank.
I am patriotic enough to the country. I am not at all toward any political party. Don't like either one of them and Nader either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DevilDon
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 102
Location: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You are seriously short-circuited. What the heck are you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
