Post #26,112
1/28/02 4:09:38 PM
|
Again?
It's called "context".
And we've already been over this.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
"Then......when I raised the more general breaches of international law.... you requalified your position to focus only on POWs."
No, that was the ORIGINAL context of the discussion.
You were the one that lost it in an attempt to re-draft my position to one more suitable to your arguments.
But, as I said, that's been covered.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
|
Post #26,118
1/28/02 4:22:41 PM
|
Dancing on the head of a pin
If you want to say that you NEVER said something.
I'm going to point out where you did.
-- Can't think of anything PC right now --
|
Post #26,141
1/28/02 5:15:18 PM
|
You post lacks content.
Or at least, it lacks a reference.
I will, once again, instruct you in the construction of a well reference posting.
Pay attention.
First, I quote the part of your post that I'm replying to:
"If you want to say that you NEVER said something. I'm going to point out where you did."
Then I reply:
What the fuck are you talking about you IDIOT!?!
Then I provide supporting material for my post.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=26101|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=26101]
Read that. You said I "requalified" my position to only focus on POW's.
As I noted ONLY THREE FUCKING POSTS AGO that was the CONTEXT of that discussion.
You do understand CONTEXT, don't you?
Oh, I forgot. Like Bill, you can't remember anything that is more that two posts ago.
Oh, I understand. If I say something like "cops are employed to uphold the law" and you can point to a specific instance of a cop breaking the law, then you feel that this somehow justifies your position or invalidates mine?
Or if I say that "cops have arrested people without violating their rights before", you can find someone who claims that cops have violated rights before and this supports your position or invalidates mine?
Oh, because I didn't put weasel words like "usually" or "most of the time" or "in many cases".
Is that what you're trying to say?
Sorry to interupt your fantasy world. But people don't behave like that.
I thought it was understood by most adults (well, intelligent adults).
I guess you don't fall into that "most adults" category.
Only in your fantasies is it that everyone acts the same and believes the same. In the real world, you have good people and bad people.
|
Post #26,160
1/28/02 6:19:02 PM
|
You are a naughty boy
>>Oh, because I didn't put weasel words like "usually" or "most of the time" >>or "in many cases".
>>Is that what you're trying to say?
>>Sorry to interupt your fantasy world. But people don't behave like that.
This is so delicious. I can't believe I have been blessed with you.
More! More! Dude, if you want to dip your toes in the legal pond for a while you would be well advised to steer clear of the famed "weasel word" defense.
Let me guess.......you hardly ever lose an argument do you? My guess is that you kick the chessboard every time your Queen gets her skirt blown up.
Does it not strike you as ironic that in the *same* post where you are pedantically squealing about me saying you "requalified" something you also want to extend yourself the privileges of not needing to use precise language?
In the SAME post! lmao THE FUCKING SAME POST!
Mike:The Second World War was most definitely NOT fought according to the rule of law.
Brandioch, you asked me to "Check the treatment of POW's." in the TITLE to one of your posts. You are asking me to believe that what you intended for me to find was (please insert appropriate weasely word) evidence of (please insert appropriate weasely word) behavior?
If so, I think you (please insert appropriate weasely word) lying.
Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic
Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're
Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here).
LINK=[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
What weasely word shall we use to describe the above? Restating? Repeating?
Clarifying? Pick anyone you like. Make a new one up if you prefer.
But........
once.......
you........
have.......
a..........
name.......
for........
it.........
PLEASE reconcile it with:
Brandioch:>> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such.
|
Post #26,167
1/28/02 6:43:42 PM
|
I think my original posts were clear enough.
"This is so delicious. I can't believe I have been blessed with you. More! More! Dude, if you want to dip your toes in the legal pond for a while you would be well advised to steer clear of the famed "weasel word" defense."
What did you intend to say?
"Let me guess.......you hardly ever lose an argument do you?"
You'd be wrong. But I don't supposed you'll believe that. You haven't so far.
"My guess is that you kick the chessboard every time your Queen gets her skirt blown up."
content == zero (again)
"Does it not strike you as ironic that in the *same* post where you are pedantically squealing about me saying you "requalified" something you also want to extend yourself the privileges of not needing to use precise language?"
In your opinion or mine?
I was talking about you taking a post of mine out of context.
That is NOT the same as you insisting that everytime I make a statement it must apply to 100% of individuals.
"In the SAME post! lmao THE FUCKING SAME POST!"
You quoted me out of context. Out of context. Deal with it.
START QUOTE
"Mike:The Second World War was most definitely NOT fought according to the rule of law."
...
useless crap deleted
...
Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we
Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic
Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're
Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here).
LINK=[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
END QUOTE
Again, you seem to be UNABLE to grasp the simple fact that I was talking about our treatment of the POW's after the war.
In fact, I have ON SEVERAL FUCKING OCCASIONS pointed out that we dropped nukes on WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE WOUNDED.
But that doesn't fit the point you want to make so you will ONCE AGAIN skip over it.
Unfortunately, it was the point I was making so your "rebutal" of my position keeps falling apart when I point out that what you're claiming I said was actually taken out of context.
Context. It's what you keep missing.
Reminder, I said we nuked women and children.
You said I said that we fought WWII accourding to the rules of war.
I said we nuked women and children.
You said I said we fought WWII accourding to the rules of war.
Eventually, I will have to presume that you think nuking women and children is in accourdance with the rules of war.
I would suggest you reconsider that opinion.
|
Post #26,173
1/28/02 7:15:17 PM
|
Brandioch: >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such
(just thought it might help if I put it in the title....you appear
to have missed it in the last post).
>>Again, you seem to be UNABLE to grasp the simple fact that I was talking
>>about our treatment of the POW's after the war.
And.........what..........were.......you.......saying......about......them?
I think I know but I may be mistaken so tell me again.
Go ahead, restate/rephrase/repeat your position.
And then............reconcile it with........
Brandioch: >> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such.
-Mike
P.S. Reprise.
Brandioch: >> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such.
>>In fact, I have ON SEVERAL FUCKING OCCASIONS pointed out that we dropped
>>nukes on WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE WOUNDED.
I got there first. (Go check I dare ya). I thought we we're talking about POWs?
Why are you bringing this up at this point?
-- Can't think of anything PC right now --
|
Post #26,179
1/28/02 7:56:02 PM
|
Again, the two post rule applies.
You can't remember anything I posted more than two posts ago.
And you're attempting to quote me out of context again.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
"I got there first. (Go check I dare ya). I thought we we're talking about POWs? Why are you bringing this up at this point?"
Ah, but that's the point. You keep switching from the treatment of POW's to claiming that I'm claiming we didn't commit war crimes.
Try to keep it straight.
And in context.
|
Post #26,182
1/28/02 8:05:37 PM
|
What POWs?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #26,183
1/28/02 8:16:21 PM
|
Those POW's.
|
Post #26,256
1/29/02 8:07:34 AM
|
Bring out the context
I'm posting the links to your posts. I've exhausted my ability
to put it into the correct context. I think you must mean some
other as yet undefined context. I think you should flush it out right now
Look......put it BACK into whatever context you see fit.
Right here. And then we can attempt to reconcile what you said.
Reminder.......
Brandioch, you asked me to "Check the treatment of POW's." in the TITLE to one of your posts. You are asking me to believe that what you intended for me to find was (please insert appropriate weasely word) evidence of (please insert appropriate weasely word) behavior?
If so, I think you (please insert appropriate weasely word) lying.
Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic
Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're
Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here).
LINK=[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
What weasely word shall we use to describe the above? Restating? Repeating?
Clarifying? Pick anyone you like. Make a new one up if you prefer.
But........
once.......
you........
have.......
a..........
name.......
for........
it.........
PLEASE reconcile it with:
Brandioch:>> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such.
P.S. I'm not getting in the least bit impatient, honest.
Every time you make a post I hear a guy in the background shouting
"Goooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!"
-- Can't think of anything PC right now --
|
Post #26,325
1/29/02 11:57:17 AM
|
Incidentally, Mike...
you have agreement from Charles Krauthammer of Washington Post. [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35191-2002Jan24.html|The Jackals Are Wrong.] The critical issue in the treatment of these captured fighters is whether, under international law, they are prisoners of war or "unlawful combatants." Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #26,347
1/29/02 1:25:25 PM
|
Thanks...another supporting link attached
Ronald D. Rotunda, professor, University of Illinois College of Law
[link|http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry012402.shtml|http://www.national...012402.shtml]
-- Can't think of anything PC right now --
|
