WTF? Here are the PHOTOGRAPHS!

Post #55,794 by Brandioch 10/9/02 3:09:36 PM Reply	WTF? Here are the PHOTOGRAPHS! Dude, did you ever leave Berlin? I was on border sites (THE FUCKING WALL) nowhere near Berlin... It ran the entire length of the country. Link. [link\|http://www.vega.net/newbr1.jpg\|Fences, not a wall.] [link\|http://www.vega.net/rospic2.jpg\|Fences, not a wall (part 2).] There was a wall in Berlin. In some places on the border, there were walls, along most of it, only fences and guard towers. And you are accusing me of not knowing basic facts. I could gloat for a long long time about this... But I won't :-) I have provided photographic evidence to support my claims. Yes, you are ignorant of basic facts. The word Soviet expansion is meaningless in the context of WHY were the Russians there... We were there, immediately after the war to keep the Soviets from occupying all of Germany. As I said, we were there to stop the Soviets from expanding into Europe. Now you've said it also. The Soviets made it very clear that they would not tolerate the Germans rebuilding their army and attacking them again. So clear that they stayed in East Germany for almost 50 years. And they left because they felt that Germany would not attack them again? No. They left because the Soviet empire was falling. Which is why I used Germany as an example of how after "hot" wars that occupying armies are kept in defeated countries to keep them in line. Strange, the ORIGINAL bit was about us (the US) still being in Germany to, as you claimed, prevent the German army from rebuilding. Now you've abandond that line and are claiming that the SOVIETS were the ones keeping the Germany army from rebuilding. Note: The US is NOT the Soviet Union. Please record this fact for future reference. "We (the US)" were there as an occupying army keeping the Russians from occupying all of Germany. Again, that is what I, Brandioch had stated. But our sole focus was not on keeping Russian expansion in check... So you claim. And claim. And claim. Yet you offer no supporting material and you make completely false claims about the situation. The territory that the US occupied was littered with US bases (that we both were stationed in) and our presence there ensured that the West German population not forget the "mistake" they made in WII. "littered with US bases"? Are you saying that the US bases were there BEFORE we were? The only reason the "US bases" were there is to BASE US TROOPS OUT OF. If the US left Germany, the "US bases" would be cease to be "US bases". And, again, you make a statement without support. I'm sure that having a military base there would remind them that they lost WWII. But as a reminder of the "mistake" they made? Check out the neo-nazi movement. No. They were NOT intended as a reminder for the "mistake" the Germans made in WWII. Again, you are so ignorant of BASIC FACTS that it would take YEARS to inform you. And you'd fight it every step of the way. Instead of wasting my time doing so, I will use you as I see fit. EVERYONE! Screamer is an EXCELLENT example of the type of person who supports Bush's plans. #1. Ignorant of basic facts. #2. Ignorant of history. #3. Ignorant of the role of the US military. #4. And willfully so.
Post #55,841 by screamer 10/9/02 7:46:47 PM Reply	I give up... a fence? A fence with guards who would shoot anyone who dared cross... Are you really gonna parse this shit that far? I mean, I feel like I'm in a bad Monty Python skit. It's a wall... No! It's a fence... Does it separate a country? Not if it's only a fence. ad nauseum. I believe that my points were valid. You disagree. Let's leave it alone for now. Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #55,916 by Brandioch 10/10/02 1:25:39 AM Reply	And now you go for the semantic play. a fence? A fence with guards who would shoot anyone who dared cross... Are you really gonna parse this shit that far? I mean, I feel like I'm in a bad Monty Python skit. It's a wall... No! It's a fence... Does it separate a country? Not if it's only a fence. ad nauseum. I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was dealing with someone so fucking mentally deficient that I had to provide a dictionary definition of "wall". Allow me to refresh your memory for you. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55523\|And so it goes...] They were surely there to keep Germany in check and set up the Eastern Block of Nations as a buffer zone against further Western European attacks... Hey, they even built a wall to keep Germany divided... or did you forget that too? The fact of the matter is that you haven't got a CLUE about ANYTHING in Europe after WWII. You THOUGHT that the wall extended along the entire border between East/West Germany. Now you're trying to play semantic games when I've provided PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF that you are wrong. You THOUGHT that the wall extended along the entire border BECAUSE YOU ARE SO FUCKING CLUELESS ABOUT HISTORY. Let's recap. You said: Hey, they even built a wall to keep Germany divided... or did you forget that too? I said: No. The "Wall" was in BERLIN. It did NOT divide Germany. It divided a city IN Germany (more specifically, a city in EAST Germany). You said: Dude, did you ever leave Berlin? I was on border sites (THE FUCKING WALL) nowhere near Berlin... It ran the entire length of the country. And you are accusing me of not knowing basic facts. I could gloat for a long long time about this... But I won't :-) So, the "wall" in Berlin means the same to you as the "wall" along the border? I then provided PHOTOGRAPHS of the ACTUAL BORDER showing it was a FENCE and not a WALL. You then said: a fence? A fence with guards who would shoot anyone who dared cross... Are you really gonna parse this shit that far? I mean, I feel like I'm in a bad Monty Python skit. It's a wall... No! It's a fence... Does it separate a country? Not if it's only a fence. ad nauseum. Again, the truth is that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you refuse to admit it. And, like I said before, that is EXACTLY the kind of person who supports Bush in this matter. Once again, This is the Berlin WALL: [link\|http://www.vega.net/rospic3.jpg\|Berlin wall] This is the BORDER between East and West Germany: [link\|http://www.vega.net/newbr1.jpg\|first] [link\|http://www.vega.net/rospic2.jpg\|second] And your NEW position is that you're right because you meant "fence with guard towers" when you said "wall". So, you'd rather be thought an illiterate idiot than a clueless moron? Naw. You're just a clueless moron who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong and is trying to lie his way out of it by claiming that I'm being overly pedantic when I say that there wasn't a "wall" between East/West Germany when there was clearly a fence with guard towers. In other words, a Bush supporter. You and Marlowe should get along smashingly.
Post #55,934 by Another Scott 10/10/02 7:01:28 AM Reply	OT: Easy on the ad hominem, please. 'Tis not necessary.
Post #55,945 by bepatient 10/10/02 8:08:14 AM Reply	Ad hominem attack against minor off topic point=par for those keeping score. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #55,964 by dmarker2 10/10/02 10:27:42 AM Reply	Re: TIME FOR ALL OF US TO COOL IT - We all ... come here in the hope we can learn. I have no doubt that you folk in the US are up to your eyeballs in the hype & bluster & pain of what is taking place. Some of y'all truly believe that Iraq is a threat that only military action can solve - other of us fear what this admin's policies are doing to the world at large. Let us all try to agree that emotions are running high & try to cool it - I for one promise to avoid putting the boot into opponents of my own views. I think that in balance we all mean well in our own ways. These are bad times for what was brought to a head on 9/11 & where it is leading us. Cheers Doug Marker (Interesting bit of info - 2,400 died in the attack on Pearl Harbour - many more were killed on 9/11 - but lets us try to put 9/11 into perspective)
Post #55,966 by Brandioch 10/10/02 10:38:24 AM Reply	Deal with it. Said "minor off topic point" is, in fact, an indicator that Screamer does NOT have the background he claimed he had. When presented with photographic evidence that contradicted his claimed experience, he retreated into semantic games (much the same as you do). Of course you'd leap to his defense. You are two peas in a pod. I'm just surprised that Marlowe hasn't also jumped in. Maybe he will later.
Post #55,971 by Silverlock 10/10/02 11:07:34 AM Reply	Lighten up It wasn't a literal "iron curtain" either, but it was there. Wall, fence or curtain, the impediment to movement was there. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #56,013 by Brandioch 10/10/02 1:56:18 PM Reply	That would be valid, except I provided a physical example. It wasn't a literal "iron curtain" either, but it was there. Wall, fence or curtain, the impediment to movement was there. I specifically pointed to the Berlin Wall. Now, your "Iron Curtain" example would be valid if I had not referenced a physical wall. As I did. The Berlin Wall. Or, if the Berlin Wall had only been a fence with guard towers.
Post #55,974 by deSitter 10/10/02 11:22:35 AM Reply	Note I know screamer personally - he's anything but a chickenhawk like bogie. In fact he's rather liberal in the strict sense, i.e. liberTARIAN in the loose sense. He's not one to advocate global adventures. When he says he's concerned about Iraq, there MUST be a really good reason for him to think that way. So you needn't attack him, I'm sure he's plenty torn up over the whole matter as it is. And you can take for gospel what he says - he has no reason to stretch the truth. If you two disagree, then it must be a matter of language and not fact. -drl
Post #55,996 by bepatient 10/10/02 12:58:04 PM Reply	Rules for the home game... Wall means wall...not barrier...not "fence with guard towers". While they all meet the same "fitness for purpose"...they have a differing dictionairy definition and will invite a tirade of small minded language attempting to belittle the poster and invalidate the entire argument based upon vocabulary and not content. And >you< will be guilty of playing semantic games...heh heh heh. Richer than triple chocolate mousse You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #55,991 by Brandioch 10/10/02 12:28:12 PM Reply	That wasn't "ad hominem". "ad hominem" is when a personal attack is used in place of a factual refutal. He claimed that there was a wall extending along the East/West German border. I provided photographic evidence that such was NOT the case. He then tried to imply that the fault was mine because I did not accept his usage of "wall" to mean "fence with guard towers". #1. There was no wall where he said there was one. #2. Anyone who had been where he said he was, when he said he was there would have known that there was no wall there. #3. Since anyone there, during that time, would have known that there was no wall there, that means that: a. He wasn't there. b. He can't tell a wall from a fence. #4. Since he claimed he was there, and #2, then, he is not telling the truth. #5. Someone who does not tell the truth is a (fill in the blank). No. This wasn't an "ad hominem" attack. This was defining his character based upon his behaviour in this discussion. Cart before the horse. His statement. My factual refutation. His semantic games. My conclusion about his character.
Post #56,023 by Ashton 10/10/02 2:24:12 PM Reply	The semantic difference may not be the crux of that exchange though. I have to second Ross that, Dan is hardly arguing from the mindset of the standard jingoistic rabble - nor is he of their ilk. Maybe you haven't ever talked with him; I have - so you are at a disadvantage in trying to discern his 'agenda'. I can't concur with his take on this situation, of course. I believe (obv) that a decision to support the carte blanche this Admin has placed before the congress - is tantamount to congress' ceding its Constitutional authority. Illegally prima facie. I don't know what has brought Dan to believe that somehow the situation justifies such an extreme act, and to conceive that Iraq represents, on 10/10/02: that immediate threat to the US which is deemed "self defense" in its normal meaning. (For that is the ONLY situation in which we may both! be legitimate members of the UN AND unilaterally take bellicose action == we can't have that both ways) But whatever Dan is, it isn't Yahoo IMhO. FWIW. Ashton
Post #56,029 by Another Scott 10/10/02 2:52:07 PM Reply	You missed the point of my post. It's not necessary, nor appropriate IMHO, to use terms like "clueless moron" when debating with people here. It doesn't help your argument. How you can say that that's not [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ad%20hominem\|ad hominem] is beyond me. Lighten up, please. Cheers, Scott.
Post #56,043 by Brandioch 10/10/02 3:44:09 PM Reply	Simple, it was after I had provided the rebuttal. It's not necessary, nor appropriate IMHO, to use terms like "clueless moron" when debating with people here. It doesn't help your argument. How you can say that that's not ad hominem [] is beyond me. Ad hominem (from your link): "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.*" Again, my conclusion about his character occured AFTER the debate. I did NOT base my rebuttal of his claim upon his character. I based it upon the photographic evidence that I provided. He then retreated into semantic games about what he ACTUALLY meant when he said "wall". From that exchange, I concluded that he was a liar. Note, that is my conclusion from the exchange. That is not a rebuttal of his position. I rebutted his position with the photographs. My conclusion as to his character occured AFTER the debate. Therefore, not an "ad hominem" attack. If I had based my rebuttal upon his being a liar, then it would be.
Post #56,052 by admin 10/10/02 4:18:35 PM Reply	Still missing the point: It isn't necessary to call people clueless morons. Please. Keep it civil. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #56,144 by Brandioch 10/11/02 7:25:49 AM Reply	So many things we do are not "necessary". It isn't necessary to call people clueless morons. Please. Keep it civil. Of course, my question would be whether it is "necessary" to identify someone who tells lies as a "liar". And so forth. It may not be necessary, but it is correct.
Post #56,157 by bepatient 10/11/02 8:35:32 AM Reply	And so it goes from the self-appointed knower of all things. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #56,327 by Ashton 10/12/02 4:27:49 AM Reply	What about the Hughes Loan? ..and - how about that WVa Senator - all by hisself! Byrd + Constitution VS Bush Dynasty + Corporate (OK - so it was no-conte$t.)
Post #56,343 by bepatient 10/12/02 8:20:30 AM Reply	? Yeah, that made sense here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #56,453 by Ashton 10/13/02 7:03:05 AM Reply	Ashleigh Brilliant In the end everything is related to everything else.
Post #56,472 by bepatient 10/13/02 10:21:41 AM Reply	I thought that... ...was called the Kevin Bacon game;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!