Here's a counter offer

Post #58,344 by marlowe 10/22/02 12:14:14 PM Reply	Here's a counter offer Give me fifty thousand dollars and I'll let you cross Afghanistan on a tricycle, wearing a T-shirt that says "once I had fifty thousand dollars, and now I don't." But you have to buy the tricycle and the T-shirt yourself. Well, it's no lamer than your offer. DUBYA WAS RIGHT about North Korea. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html] The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave. "The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert\ufffds Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions." - Lileks
Post #58,365 by Brandioch 10/22/02 12:35:12 PM Reply	Once again, you "miss" the point. Kuwait is a "friendly" country. If you can't bike across a "friendly" country....
Post #58,382 by Mike 10/22/02 12:54:59 PM Reply	Been watching the news lately? U.S. forces are coming under fire in Kuwait. Do you want to revise your definition of "friendly" or what? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,389 by Brandioch 10/22/02 1:06:54 PM Reply	You and Marlowe. Two peas in a pod. Note the use of >"< in "friendly". Of COURSE they are friendly. After all, didn't we free them from Iraq? Didn't we help them rebuild their country after the war? Didn't we help them put out the oil fires? Didn't we do ALL of that FOR them? So, why wouldn't they be FRIENDLY to us? Ah, like Marlowe, you lack the history and perspective to understand how they view our CURRENT policy and how they react to it. And Kuwait has the MOST reason to BE FRIENDLY to us.
Post #58,392 by bepatient 10/22/02 1:11:33 PM Reply	Just like the French...right? Just to make sure the historical perspective is adequately represented. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,424 by boxley 10/22/02 2:23:55 PM Reply	all those in favor of invading france raise your hands they have nukes are inimical to American interests and their food smells funny. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,428 by bepatient 10/22/02 2:30:29 PM Reply	/me raises hands and for as close as they are to Britain, Germany and Belgium...what they do to beer is worse than a crime. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,450 by deSitter 10/22/02 3:21:01 PM Reply	Yeu shall neut have eur women or eur croissants! -drl
Post #58,432 by Mike 10/22/02 2:34:44 PM Reply	And they speak English with an outrajus accent. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,449 by deSitter 10/22/02 3:17:31 PM Reply	Yeu stupide fewl! I fart in yeur generale direction! -drl
Post #58,451 by bepatient 10/22/02 3:22:39 PM Reply	Fetch-ay la vache!!! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,686 by dmarker 10/23/02 3:20:42 AM 10/23/02 6:56:34 AM Reply	Re: Non non non -c'est le grand petard French Quiz What does 'hoist by one's own Petar(d)' mean? a) Someone lit a match behind you just as you released a well nourished methane blast from your rear b) Speared with your own lance (as with Petard = olde English lance (or halberd)) c) Blew your self up with your own bomb (came unstuck with your own devious deed) (a clue = Petar (Peter) is old french for a big, noisy fart) Cheers Doug Marker (answer is c) [link\|http://www.quinion.com/words/weirdwords/ww-pet1.htm\|Link1] [link\|http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhoistw.html\|Link2] [link\|http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/P0218900.html\|Link3] Edited by dmarker Oct. 23, 2002, 06:56:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #58,421 by Mike 10/22/02 2:17:25 PM Reply	Priceless >>Ah, like Marlowe, you lack the history and perspective to understand >>how they view our CURRENT policy and how they react to it. And you will dance from foot to foot and switch from argument to argument as it suits your current needs. One of your needs is not.... it would seem.... consistency. Here's a link in which you argue that Kuwait *ARE* our friends so that you could make some separate point about Saudi Arabia: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37693\|Link] What's it to be? -Mike P.S. Putting "Ah" at the start of your sentences does not make you appear wiser. Trust me on this one :-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,429 by bepatient 10/22/02 2:32:10 PM Reply	Re: Priceless needs more h's for the wisdom effect... As in...Ahhhh...I C. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,436 by Brandioch 10/22/02 2:46:26 PM Reply	Tee hee hee. I like it that Bill responded to you. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37677\|The PRIOR post from Bill Pathetic] We're pretty good friends with Kuwait...but they're not all that bid nor influential. Who else is there...Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt? Israel is not a muslim nation. So, Bill Pathetic makes a statement. I respond (the one you linked to). So, we're friends with Kuwait. But Kuwait isn't "all that bid nor influential." And we're friends with Israel. But Israel isn't a "muslim nation." So, we have to be friends with someone who #1. Is Muslim -and- #2. Is influential. I notice that you left out Uzbekistan. You remember Uzbekistan? They were the first to let us deploy our warplanes in their country during "Eduring Freedom". They are Muslim AND influential. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You COMPLETELY missed the CONTEXT. AGAIN! Bill Pathetic made a statement. I broke his statement down to individual "facts". The bit where you're claiming I'm arguing that Kuwait is our friend is the bit where I'm re-phrasing what Bill Pathetic said. The reason I re-phrased that was to show Bill Pathetic where he was UNINFORMED about the situation because he didn't know about UZBEKISTAN! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And you think that because I re-phrased Bill Pathetic's argument back at him that it became MY position? hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha!
Post #58,438 by bepatient 10/22/02 2:54:42 PM Reply	Excuse me? Oh..somehow I thought you had a point. I was wrong. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,447 by Brandioch 10/22/02 3:10:22 PM Reply	Did you miss the point? The point was that Mike thought that the bit where I was quoting YOUR position back to you was actually MY position. Rather, it was YOUR position. Which makes it so MUCH FUNNIER because then YOU replied to HIM in THIS THREAD! Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahhahahahahahah hahahahahahaha hahahahahahahhahahahahhaha Because YOU didn't know you were ignorant about the mid-east and THOUGHT you were informed... ahahahhahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahhhahahahahhahahahahhahahah And HE thinks that he's informed.... When he can't even understand CONTEXT.... ahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahha ahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah And then YOU jump in to support him against ME hooo hooo hoooo I haven't laughed this much in AGES! You see!!!!!! It was YOUR position that he was claiming was WRONG because he says Kuwait is NOT our friend and YOU say that Kuwait IS our friend. hehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehehehe
Post #58,452 by bepatient 10/22/02 3:25:45 PM Reply	I never stated anything in this thread... ...even remotely close to what you are attributing to me. You even seem to be equating safe (as in personal safety) with "friendly" in the political sense. I forgot how much you enjoy your own made up arguments. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,457 by Mike 10/22/02 3:35:56 PM Reply	Ohhhhhh I see now When you said "friendly"..... I thought you were re-phrasing one of Bill Patients posts from a few months ago. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,484 by Brandioch 10/22/02 5:14:12 PM Reply	Nice "cover". :) You have a problem understanding what the >"< means around "friendly". You try to find a post where I said Kuwait was friendly. (no "s). You find one. But you fail to understand the CONTEXT of that post. So, when you link to it saying that I was arguing that Kuwait was friendly to the US.... Now you're saying that you thought my post from TODAY was me re-phrasing an argument from Bill Pathetic from MONTHS ago. hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha ahhahahahahahahaha The post that you had to link to to "prove" that I changed my story? hahahahhahahahahah
Post #58,486 by bepatient 10/22/02 5:16:12 PM Reply	Hard to understand context... ...when you seem to be making it up as you go along. But then its nice to see you so eager and able to amuse yourself. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,492 by Brandioch 10/22/02 5:22:13 PM Reply	I expect that from you. You make a statement. The facts show that your statement is incorrect. You blame ME because YOU made an incorrect statement. No. YOU will NEVER understand CONTEXT. You stated that Kuwait was our friend. So, you will have no trouble taking up dmarker's offer? I didn't think so. hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahaahahaha But it's all MY fault. My fault! All my fault. hahahahahahhahahahahaha
Post #58,495 by bepatient 10/22/02 5:26:12 PM Reply	You are amusing. And since you seem to invent your own context I'm sure you'll continue to enjoy yourself. Here's to Uzbekistan becoming a force in MidEast politics... It could happen. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,497 by Mike 10/22/02 5:38:56 PM Reply	Actually It was meant to be humor. I think you're taking yourself too seriously :-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,510 by Brandioch 10/22/02 5:57:37 PM Reply	And when you've been beaten and you know it..... claim you were just joking. hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha
Post #58,520 by Mike 10/22/02 6:20:19 PM Reply	Context your honor........ Context......... CONTEXT! Now THAT'S funny. Will a claim that I was just joking get me out of it? No I didn't think so. Do you really think I would believe that for a second? No I didn't think so. Let's just suppose you're right. I give it to you that I misquoted you. Is that IT? Is that the best you've got to crow over. C'mon. Come ON! Can we talk about more interesting things about which you are unequivicolly wrong? If so, I'll concede on this point that you are right. Ummmm naaaaaaaaaaaaah I won't give it to you. Can't do it. You claim that you were simply re-phrasing Bill Patients remarks and you wanted no part of the point? Bullshit and you know it. The problem is this. If you had ANY problem whatsoever with the "friendly" moniker you would have been all over that shit like white on rice. But you weren't were you? The reason.........that was your position... not only Bill's. "So, we're friends with Kuwait." Your words. Period. You didn't just repeat his point...you repeated it and used it in support of your desire to point out your belief about Uzbekistan. Your post reads like freakin' gibberish if you genuinely thought Kuwait was not friendly. Why even bother to include Kuwait and pair it off with Israel? You are being disingenuous in your careful interpretation of what you think you can claim to have said. My position is that you are lying. Yes I am calling you a liar. (I learned this technique from you). I concede you nothing. P.S. Didn't I already tell you about using "ah" to try to make yourself sound clever? It works the other way around too. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,549 by Brandioch 10/22/02 6:47:12 PM Reply	No, now you need "reading with comprehension". Let's just suppose you're right. I give it to you that I misquoted you. Is that IT? Is that the best you've got to crow over. C'mon. Come ON! Nope. #1. You didn't understand what I meant by "friendly" in reference to Kuwait. #2. You claimed I was inconsistent and that I had, previously, claimed that Kuwait was friendly (no quotes). #3. You went and found a previous post of mine where I had typed that BUT YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE CONTEXT OF THE POST and that specific line. #4. When it FINALLY became too much, even for you, to deny, you claimed you were joking. #5. THEN, you want it to be ME who reacted weird when YOU "misquoted" me. #6. NOW! You STILL want to argue over whether I should have disproven Mr. Pathetic's statement about Kuwait when I was illustrating his lack of knowledge regarding that region. Ummmm naaaaaaaaaaaaah I won't give it to you. Can't do it. You claim that you were simply re-phrasing Bill Patients remarks and you wanted no part of the point? Bullshit and you know it. The problem is this. If you had ANY problem whatsoever with the "friendly" moniker you would have been all over that shit like white on rice. But you weren't were you? The reason.........that was your position... not only Bill's. So, I've already established that you don't understand what was meant by Kuwait being "friendly".. -and- I've established that you couldn't understand the CONTEXT of my post that you linked to.... -YET- You're going to argue what my position was regarding Kuwait in the post that you've linked? You don't understand sarcasm or context yet you claim to know what my position is? My position is that you are lying. Yes I am calling you a liar. (I learned this technique from you). Wonderful. Ummmmmmm, isn't that similar to what you accused me of earlier? Well, yes, I think it is. I couldn't be a LIAR if I didn't claim that I wasn't claiming that Kuwait was a friend of the US's after I'd just used sarcasm when refering to Kuwait as a "friend". Since you've lost on the CONTEXT issue, you'll claim that you understand what my original position was regarding Kuwait. hahahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahhaahhaahhahahahaha! You can't even understand my position when I put "friendly" in QUOTES! Yet you can deduce my position based upon what I don't make a point of disagreeing with? hahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha! You are being disingenuous in your careful interpretation of what you think you can claim to have said. What I THINK I can CLAIM to have SAID? Ummm, there's this thing called a "link". I think you might be familiar with it. Am I too esoteric in my phrasing for you? No. No the kid. Rather, since you've been beaten SO BADLY! (and PUBLICLY)..... You're going to narrow your focus sooooooo much that you'll take ONE SENTENCE from me........ OUT OF CONTEXT and deduce my opinion from that. But, wasn't CONTEXT one of the things (besides sarcasm) that I have demonstrated you do NOT understand? hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha! Keep it up!
Post #58,583 by Mike 10/22/02 8:09:51 PM Reply	Yes You are correct. I have been beaten. Very bady. And very publicly. I must hand it to you. You are an AWESOME debater! (No cynicism intended) -Mike I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,585 by Mike 10/22/02 8:12:16 PM Reply	And... ...yes, I did hunt and peck for your reference to Kuwait. I did misinterpret what you said. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,586 by Mike 10/22/02 8:13:10 PM Reply	And... ...this is how its supposed to go in a healthy forum.... I'm inclined to think. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,628 by boxley 10/22/02 10:30:46 PM Reply	Rofl wonder how long he will right shift before he realizes he's been brandisized! reminds me been a while, thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,666 by Mike 10/23/02 12:17:52 AM Reply	I don't mind losing a battle to Brandi He's kicked my ass before. As I have his. (Getting him to admit it is something else entirely tho) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,453 by Mike 10/22/02 3:28:01 PM Reply	Oh god.......... new lows. >>So, we're friends with Kuwait. >>But Kuwait isn't "all that bid nor influential." You make it clear where you are intending to use Bill's words and clear where you are using yours. At no time did you challenge your own words which you typed "So, we're friends with Kuwait." You typed it and you never once paused to challenge or question the idea. Yet today you are suddenly in possession of new profound insight about Kuwait. You are either inconsistent or a liar. Which is it to be? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,458 by bepatient 10/22/02 3:42:31 PM Reply	Nah...he's been there before. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,490 by Brandioch 10/22/02 5:19:40 PM Reply	Which is it? I'm laughing, that's which it is. Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha You're STILL trying to dig up something that says I'm not consistent! hahahahhahahahahahahahah Even AFTER I've shown how you can't understand CONTEXT! Even AFTER I've shown how you don't understand SARCASM! hahahhahahahahahahahahahahh You typed it and you never once paused to challenge or question the idea. Because I was using Mr. Pathetic's "logic" to show that he didn't understand the situation over there. I don't have to disprove his statement on Kuwait being our friend because I'm going to USE that statement to show that he doesn't understand the situation by including that statement about Kuwait with the FACTS about Uzbekistan. Now, I've shown how you don't understand LOGIC! ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha
Post #58,493 by bepatient 10/22/02 5:22:59 PM Reply	Ah...using that to do what... ...justify not wanting to ride a bicycle across Kuwait? By trying again to claim that Uzbekistan is a force in mideast politics? (again...sigh) You certainly can keep yourself amused. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,513 by Brandioch 10/22/02 6:14:31 PM Reply	Nice try. I tell Marlowe that he's wrong because he missed the point. Mike thinks I'm wrong because Mike can't parse "friendly" (quotes included). I tell Mike that he's wrong because he missed the point. Mike says I'm inconsistent because he has a link to where I said Kuwait is a friend (no quotes). You jump to his defense. I show Mike that the link he's quoting is actually me responding to your claim and re-phrasing your "support" for your position back at you so I can disprove your position. Mike says I'm inconsistent because he says I'm inconsistent. You get upset because your earlier post has been disproven by Mike whom you were trying to support against me. NEITHER of you can understand CONTEXT! hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhaahha Now you're claiming that it is >I< who does not understand context. Hahahahahhahahahahhaha Once AGAIN, you are the one with the incorrect fact and it is MY FAULT! hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha Marlowe can't parse for context. Mike can't understand what quotations around a word means. Mike can't parse for context. Bill Pathetic is Johnny-on-the-spot whenever someone disagrees with me. But it is Bill Pathetic's statement that Mike is having contextual issues with. So Mike is arguing that Bill's ORIGINAL statement is INCORRECT when Bill jumped in to help Mike against me when I was replying to Marlowe! ALL THREE STOOGES IN ONE THREAD! Woooooooo wheeeeeeee! I do believe that that is refered to as a "hat trick"!
Post #58,522 by Mike 10/22/02 6:22:21 PM Reply	Hmmmmmm More than two people in a thread is a hat-trick? Interesting. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,550 by Brandioch 10/22/02 6:49:08 PM Reply	THREE! Marlowe, Mike and Pathetic! Oh, sorry. Guess you don't follow football.
Post #58,717 by bepatient 10/23/02 8:02:45 AM Reply	Excuse me moron...but thats hockey... ...and your still wrong here...and in the previous thread. First...by claiming that me posting a smartass response is anything near "defending"...(France and the wisdom of "ahhh"...really serious jump to defense there bucko) Second...by pretending that any of the former soviet satellites in the region are good places to start when trying to influence politics in the region (previous rediculous assertion) and Third...by equating political friendliness with personal safety and anti_American sentiment in the population. So..if you consider being wrong on 3points a hat trick...congrats buddy...you're all that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,926 by Brandioch 10/23/02 4:37:49 PM Reply	Was that "moron" you said? To me? Excuse me moron...but thats hockey... ...and your still wrong here...and in the previous thread. Awwww, I hate to burst your bubble, but a "hat trick" is ALSO found in SOCCER!!! hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahaha! Like I've pointed out before, you knowledge of anything other than your immediate environs is beyond limited. First...by claiming that me posting a smartass response is anything near "defending"...(France and the wisdom of "ahhh"...really serious jump to defense there bucko) Okay, I'm having a little trouble parsing that statement. Are you saying that I claimed you were "defending" France? Perhaps you might brush up a bit on something called "English". ahhahahahahahahhahahahahah Second...by pretending that any of the former soviet satellites in the region are good places to start when trying to influence politics in the region (previous rediculous assertion) and But Uzbekistan was where we launched the FIRST attack against Afghanistan from. Since Afghanistan has now had its government replaced... and a government is "politics".... Then it seems that a former Soviet satellite WAS a good place to START from when trying to influence politics in that region. No. The reason YOU don't think it is is because YOU don't UNDERSTAND the region OR the countries there. All YOU know is what the US-focused media FEEDS you. So, if YOU have never heard of it, then it can't be important, can it? Just as 99% of the US population couldn't identify what al Queda was in 2000 nor who led it. Third...by equating political friendliness with personal safety and anti_American sentiment in the population. Say that again. So, they can be politically friendly -but- the population can be "anti_American" Allow me to refresh your memory on this subject. Saddam takes over Iraq. The US gives Saddam money to develop weapons to use against Iran. Saddam asks the US if he can invade Kuwait. The US says that we don't care how he handles his neighbors. Saddam invades Kuwait and a lot of bad things happen to Kuwait (and the people there). The US builds a coalition and kicks Saddam out of Kuwait. No. Kuwait is not politically friendly to the US. Kuwait knows that if they do not cooperate with the US, the US has the means to hurt them. Cooperation is NOT the same a friendship. and THAT is why it is NOT safe for US citizens to be over there.
Post #58,936 by Ashton 10/23/02 4:58:01 PM Reply	'Hat Trick' I first heard re motorcycle GP racing, in Brit cycle magazines and at the Isle of Man TT races. Believe it was re John Hartle winning 3? more? GPs in one year, or maybe John Surtees. While I've never researched its coining and suspect it is of a horsey slant or merely Magician/rabbit? - I believe that in UK English and nowadays.. it has become generic for Wow.. What a Fucking Performance! (Like say, Wynton Marsalis winning the [Some Big Award] in both Classical and Popular music (jazz) one year.) Real English speakers - please correct my assumptions here. Ashton
Post #58,940 by ChrisR 10/23/02 5:04:16 PM Reply	Cricket. From [link\|http://www.geocities.com/etymonline/h1etym.htm\|Etymology Online]: Hat trick is originally from cricket, c.1877, "taking three wickets on three bowls," extended to other sports (esp. ice hockey). Ok, I didn't know it before... but that's the beauty of the internet. Now all I have to figure out is what a wicket and a bowl is. :-)
Post #58,943 by bepatient 10/23/02 5:44:55 PM Reply	Yes it was... ...and knowing that you are resident of this country...football is >not< soccer. And in this post...you used >soccer<. So unless you think that someone on the Seahawks can score a hat trick...this cover up ain't gonna work. Reread [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=58513\|your own post] where you claim I was "defending" something. You made it up...don't as me to do the work to "unmake" it. I don't need refreshing on politics in the region. When I spoke of needing "friends" in the region...it was centered around allies that could provide political influence...not military bases. (though these help) A former Soviet satellite with barely 10 years independence doesn't quite fit that bill...but you can pretend it does..and you are. Turkmenistan is another one..its even closer to IRAQ...maybe we can make friends with them too...but since neither have significant history in the issues we were discussing at the time (Israel being just as much or more a factor that oil with our mideast problems)...I'd say your still pulling stuff from your nether regions. Saudi is still a better choice.(same as it was in the prior thread). And your still equating personal safety with politics. There are alot of places in NY where I as an American am not safe...but I'd wager that the city of NY is politically friendly. (regardless of their reason for being so inclined) Tell you what...since everything in the region revolves around oil...we can invade Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan...we'd replace all the oil that we'll lose by turning Iraq into a sheet of glass! Lemme go call GW! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}
Post #58,954 by Brandioch 10/23/02 6:24:35 PM Reply	Hee hee hee. Awwww, now you're going to tell me what I meant, too? Nope. The POINT was that you are UNINFORMED about events in the WORLD. That is why I used "football" instead of "soccer". Anyone in England would have understood a hat trick in football. Anyone in Brazil would have understood a hat trick in football. And so forth. Now, you, because of your massive ignorance of anything not spoon fed to you by the US media, think that a hat trick is only in hockey. Because that is the ONLY place you've ever heard of it. Therefore, you declare that I'm wrong because a hat trick is in HOCKEY and NOT FOOTBALL. And THAT is what I have to KEEP POINTING OUT TO YOU. You don't know ANYTHING that isn't spoon fed to you. You don't know what the REST OF THE WORLD sees. Instead, you keep arguing that the rest of the world conform to YOUR narrow minded viewpoint. Yes it was... ...and knowing that you are resident of this country...football is >not< soccer. Yes, I am. And, as I've pointed out often enough in the past, I've spent many years outside of this country. I've spent a lot of time learning about how the OTHER PEOPLE in the world think and operate. You have not. Yet you, for some reason, THINK that you understand their situations. To put it in very simple terms for you..... If someone is talking to me and they mention that their football team scored a field goal, I'll know what they're talking about. If someone else is talking to me and mentions that someone on his favorite team pulled a hat trick in the football game yesterday, I'll know what they're talking about. And that is something that cannot be communicated to someone such as yourself. The world is a lot bigger than you imagine it to be. The world is a lot more complex than you imagine it to be. The people in the world do NOT all have the same point of view that you have. In your mind, a hat trick exists solely in hockey. And it is that mindset that precludes you from ever understanding mid-east politics.
Post #58,974 by bepatient 10/23/02 8:06:34 PM Reply	Ahhhh...thee of massive experience. Clue...I've as much if not more experience outside of this country as you have... (Oh...thats right...your mental image of anyone >not agreeing with you< is some hayseed from Kansas that doesn't know where Afghanistan is on a map). The point being that >you< demand that level of linguistic accuracy of others...yet don't adhere to it yourself. Football in your country means football. You know this by switching to soccer in the next post...but "of course"...you meant to do that...as a "joke" that you would >never< allow anyone else to make...only you are allowed do these things. Heaven forbid if Mike had made that "joke"...we'd have 5 more levels of right shift because he isn't allowed to do these things on Planet Brandioch. So you can continue to believe in your superiority...and continue to be wrong on all of these points....its no skin off my nose. So...pretend that buying your booze at the PX has given you massive insight into the world...I know better. I didn't live on a base with a bunch of other close shaven lads...I lived with the natives. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,012 by Brandioch 10/24/02 2:33:29 AM Reply	So you claim. Clue...I've as much if not more experience outside of this country as you have... Really? That's cool. Then why is it that you have such a limited understanding of the rest of the world? The point being that >you< demand that level of linguistic accuracy of others...yet don't adhere to it yourself. No. That is why I constantly included "depending upon your definition" in my posts. That way, people will know what definition I'm using when I feel it isn't obvious from the context. Football in your country means football. Yes, it does. But I am not limited to what something is called in the USofA. I have world wide experience. You know this by switching to soccer in the next post...but "of course"...you meant to do that...as a "joke" that you would >never< allow anyone else to make...only you are allowed do these things. And that is EXACTLY what I keep illustrating about you. You decide that I am wrong because my usage did not fit with your LIMITED experience and because my usage did not fit with your LIMITED experience, then I was WRONG for employing that usage. Heaven forbid if Mike had made that "joke"...we'd have 5 more levels of right shift because he isn't allowed to do these things on Planet Brandioch. So nice to see you picking up Marlowe's terminology. I guess that reveals a bit more about yourself. As for you crying about the terms I use, wasn't it you that wanted to substitute "interfering in others affairs" for "war". You know "war". The bit about dropping bombs on civilians and maiming children and so on. No. You're always right because you define what the terms mean. So what if your definitions are limited by your LIMITED experience? You're still right because you KNOW what those terms mean and anyone who uses them in any other fashion is WRONG because.......... THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DO IT IN THE USofA!!! And people like you sicken me. I didn't live on a base with a bunch of other close shaven lads...I lived with the natives. Again, more claims to experience that just don't seem to be borne out. If you did, then you'd know what a hat trick in football was.
Post #59,030 by bepatient 10/24/02 7:39:42 AM Reply	Classic Hmm...some poetic license... "Oh no...what you say can't be true because "I" don't agree." "Its not bourne out by >my< view of the facts." "I'm allowed to play these linguistic games because I have "experience" that other don't" Which one of us is "pathetic?" Like I said...PX priveledges and sharing living quarters with other groundpounders doesn't qualify you as "expert" And I know what a hat trick in Soccer is (and such other trivia as the "Hand of God" and the winner of the 88 Euro Cup)...you don't seem to understand the finer point of that post. You allow noone else to do play those games. Yet when I call you on it, its because I lack experience. So I ask again...which one of us is pathetic? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,097 by Brandioch 10/24/02 12:40:47 PM Reply	That would be you. Which one of us is "pathetic?" That would be you. "Oh no...what you say can't be true because "I" don't agree." No. It could be true. You just have to support what you say with more than "It's true because I said it". "Its not bourne out by >my< view of the facts." Again, if you present such facts as support, then it is up to me to refute those facts. But you don't present facts. You rely on "maybe" and "possibly" and so forth. "I'm allowed to play these linguistic games because I have "experience" that other don't" No. The bit about football and hat tricks was to DEMONSTRATE the limits you operate under. Namely, a viewpoint limited to the US only. Like I said...PX priveledges and sharing living quarters with other groundpounders doesn't qualify you as "expert" That would depend upon what the subject was. In the matter of international politics and the history of the mid-east, you would be correct. But I don't claim to be an "expert" on such matters. Just that I know far more about the situations and the history than YOU do. But that's just your old attempt at strawman, isn't it? And I know what a hat trick in Soccer is (and such other trivia as the "Hand of God" and the winner of the 88 Euro Cup)...you don't seem to understand the finer point of that post. I'm sure you do. Now. After I explained the post to you. After you've had time to check google for the materials. After I've shown that you were incorrect when you claimed that it was in hockey (implying that it was not in football). You allow noone else to do play those games. Yet when I call you on it, its because I lack experience. No. When someone else claims there was a wall where there wasn't a wall, that is not the same. Wall == "barrier" -and- Fence == "barrier" -therefore- Wall == Fence That works in math, but not in the English language. Ah, something NEW I've had to explain to you.
Post #59,110 by bepatient 10/24/02 1:09:38 PM Reply	Classic Part 2 No. It could be true. You just have to support what you say with more than "It's true because I said it". Ah...so how does "I said this so you need to refute it with several hundred references that I won't get on my own" fit in with that statement. In other words...you seem to miserably fail at practicing what you preach. "Again, if you present such facts as support, then it is up to me to refute those facts. But you don't present facts. You rely on "maybe" and "possibly" and so forth. So when do you plan on providing a link that proves Bush grounded the drones? Link was provided. Then somehow it was up to me >again< to disprove your assertion. According to you...thats not how its supposed to work (unless you have a double standard..which is horribly apparent) No. The bit about football and hat tricks was to DEMONSTRATE the limits you operate under. Namely, a viewpoint limited to the US only. Continued cop-out. You can do it..but noone else can. It certainly >is< the same because you are using words that have multiple definitions based upon context and location. Its only >not the same< here because admitting so would be admitting you are wrong. I'll dig out the photo from the afterparty of the Euro Cup. It was a hell of a party. Rooting with my friends with national pride on the line makes the Super Bowl look downright boring. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,113 by Brandioch 10/24/02 1:19:29 PM Reply	I think I've demonstrated this sufficiently. Ah...so how does "I said this so you need to refute it with several hundred references that I won't get on my own" fit in with that statement. That would be you. When I state something, I back it up with facts. As with this current thread. Do you want me to provide facts showing what a hat trick is in football? Are you going to claim that there isn't one? In other words...you seem to miserably fail at practicing what you preach. Only in your opinion. But then, you believe that "maybe" and "possibly" are supportive of your positions. So when do you plan on providing a link that proves Bush grounded the drones? Link was provided. Then somehow it was up to me >again< to disprove your assertion. According to you...thats not how its supposed to work (unless you have a double standard..which is horribly apparent) I did. And when they were first used, what the problems were, how those problems were fixed and when they went to Bush to get them deployed. Because these facts do not fit your viewpoint, you keep forgetting them and claiming that I haven't posted them. Continued cop-out. You can do it..but noone else can. It certainly >is< the same because you are using words that have multiple definitions based upon context and location. You're right and wrong. Yes, it is about CONTEXT!!! Something that I have CONTINUALLY harped upon YOUR inability to GRASP. And the CONTEXT would be CLEAR to anyone not blinded by your US-centric viewpoint. Which is something ELSE I've had to continually point out to you. Yes!!! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!! CONTEXT!!! Learn it! And lose the US-centric viewpoint. It will make you a better person.
Post #59,123 by bepatient 10/24/02 1:38:12 PM Reply	Don't have it... ....and your link did nothing to prove a grounding of the ops. It talked about when they were grounded. (Pre-Bush) It talked about them being retrofitted. It discussed final testing was complete (after 2 more months) Then the next thing you know...there are news articles talking about how drones are back in theater. Remarkably anti-US centric. But you can pretend anything you want...you always do. On your "proof" of drones Your link says... Sept/Oct they stop. Feb they're in Nevada. ( 5 months) April their done testing. Assuming >instantaneous< approval of redeployment (you are military and implying this is even remotely possible would be horribly suspect) so to get them back in theater would take, presumably the same 5 months it took to get them out. You still end up with them out of operation until after 9/11. And links have been provided to show they are indeed being used at that point. So barring a report that Bush stated they were NOT to be used...simple timelines applied to >your< link disprove your position. Yet it remains up to me to disprove your >assertion< that Bush grounded the ops. But you only state things backed with >facts<. I know context. I also know pattern. Called upon it...you will hold yourself to lesser standards than you hold others. This is all that the point was meant to prove. I think it worked. I may have a posting lull tonight btw...considering I have to ref a couple of soccer games tonight. How horribly US centric of me to miss the World Series for that "gosh dern ferner" game. I'll be moving to Montana soon. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,147 by Brandioch 10/24/02 2:43:23 PM Reply	Knock off the lies. It also stated exactly where the project was introduced to Bush and turned down. Bush said not to use the drones. This was documented and in the link I provided. Because it doesn't match your viewpoint, you keep claiming it wasn't there. Sept/Oct they stop. Feb they're in Nevada. ( 5 months) April their done testing. Assuming >instantaneous< approval of redeployment (you are military and implying this is even remotely possible would be horribly suspect) so to get them back in theater would take, presumably the same 5 months it took to get them out. No, to try to "support" your position, you add the TESTING time to the TRAVEL time and claim that it would take that long to move them back. Fine, but that assumes that retrofitting and testing took ZERO time. Bzzzzt!
Post #59,157 by bepatient 10/24/02 3:27:17 PM Reply	Nope. Op/Ed piece that claimed Rumsfeld did it...to back an assertion that Bush did it countered by the actual reports that showed the actual problems... And no. Retrofitting and testing is Feb-April from one account and following (from your links) an account pushing that back to August. So. It took Sept to Feb (5 months) to get from theater to Nevada. Testing Feb to April (or worse...August)...how long to get back? Gee...your generosity gives them weeks. [link\|http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/indepth/id-CIAdrones.html\|http://www.azstarnet...id-CIAdrones.html] By early spring this year, the CIA had brought the Predators back to the United States and was actively pushing the Air Force to equip them with Hellfire missiles for a possible redeployment in Afghanistan. Tests in Nevada dragged on through the summer as technicians tried to refine the plane's ability to fire accurately at targets from high altitudes. By August, officials say, the kinks had been worked out and the planes were ready to go. But even then, the Bush administration was riddled with doubts about whether it wanted to go forward with a new, more forceful mission over Afghanistan. The risks, officials say, were huge. Top Bush Cabinet officials convened several times in late summer to discuss the pros and cons of going forward. Even >worse< for your case because it pushes mission readiness of the drones into August. I see..."riddled with doubts" is the same as ordering them grounded. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,180 by Brandioch 10/24/02 4:15:48 PM Reply	I've already established your problems with context. I see..."riddled with doubts" is the same as ordering them grounded. In this instance, it is. They were presented with a system that they refused to deploy. They refused to deploy it because they were "riddled with doubts" about it. The action is refusing to deploy the drones. The reason for the action is they were riddled with doubts. I say that Bush took a specific action. You are focusing on the reason why he took that specific action and trying to claim the reason is the action. Bzzzzzt! You're wrong again!
Post #59,187 by pwhysall 10/24/02 4:23:55 PM Reply	fap Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #59,201 by bepatient 10/24/02 5:01:03 PM Reply	rofl You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,155 by screamer 10/24/02 3:19:46 PM Reply	Gonna be a dental floss tycoon? Or a mental toss flycoon? Just me and the pygmy pony over by the dental floss bush... (thanks Frank Z) Bill... It's over... Just practice this sign (with sincere apologies to Michel Merlin) whenever you post with ... youknowho -----ooooOOOooooo----- 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 #59,158 by bepatient 10/24/02 3:29:15 PM Reply	Bingo! Gonna be wearing my Python Boots too. Yeah...might as well let Nanook Rub it;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,125 by Mike 10/24/02 1:39:21 PM Reply	I back it up with facts LMAO >>When I state something, I back it up with facts. You stated that Israel was acting as a proxy for the United States' interests when it bombed Iraq's nuclear facility. Had you even TRIED to back it up with facts......you (I hope) would have realised/discovered that the U.S. participated in a condemnation of Israel for its actions. So......I think you need a "weasle word" here. You USUALLY back it up with facts. You SOMETIMES back it up with facts. Heck, I'll let you choose the word. But "I back it up with facts" is BS. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,197 by Brandioch 10/24/02 4:39:02 PM Reply	Mike == clueless. You stated that Israel was acting as a proxy for the United States' interests when it bombed Iraq's nuclear facility. That is correct. Had you even TRIED to back it up with facts......you (I hope) would have realised/discovered that the U.S. participated in a condemnation of Israel for its actions. Have you read the document? [link\|http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be25c7c81949e71a052567270057c82b/6c57312cc8bd93ca852560df00653995!OpenDocument\|here] Note that Israel is not punished for the attack. Nor are damages awarded to Iraq for the attack. And so forth. In other words, the US told Israel that the attack was "wrong" but that NOTHING would be done to Israel because of it. And nothing was done to Israel. No fines, no punishments, no inspectors.... NOTHING. And THAT is what being a proxy is about. The US gets to remove itself from the ACTIONS, but still looks after the proxy's interests.
Post #59,211 by Mike 10/24/02 5:29:48 PM Reply	Bad logic, bad facts After the bombing, the White House reported to congress that a "substantial" violation of the Arms Export Control Act prohibition against the use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense may have occurred. Congress declined to take any action.....lets keep this for a separate thread. Now...when the White House reported this to Congress...were they trying to make sure that their proxy was rewarded? Your understanding of history is VERY flawed. The U.S. wanted to distance themselves from Israels actions when they elected not to veto the resolution. At the same time, they made it clear that they would not support sanctions against them. All of this behaviour is JUST as consistent with the fact that Israel was an ally. To interpret this as proof that they were acting on our behalf is without foundation.....I would like some EVIDENCE please. Combine the above with the fact that the White House reported what they did to the Congress........its utterly delusional. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,217 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:03:02 PM Reply	So you say. Your understanding of history is VERY flawed. So you say. The U.S. wanted to distance themselves from Israels actions when they elected not to veto the resolution. At the same time, they made it clear that they would not support sanctions against them. Hmmm, I seem to recall reading that somewhere else. Now, where could I have read that. Oh, I know. I just posted that. All of this behaviour is JUST as consistent with the fact that Israel was an ally. To interpret this as proof that they were acting on our behalf is without foundation.....I would like some EVIDENCE please. Hmmm, you were the one that chose the event. I provided the substantiation. The US did not veto the resolution, but there wasn't ANYTHING in the resolution that did anything to Israel IN ANY FORM OR FASHION. In other words, Israel bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq and got away with it. And you still want more proof? Okay, how much aid do we send to Israel? How does that compare to the REST of the aid we send to countries?
Post #59,257 by wharris2 10/24/02 8:46:31 PM Reply	Jeez, will you never let go? Or let anyone else have a last word?
Post #59,287 by Brandioch 10/24/02 10:58:49 PM Reply	I'm sorry, was I talking to you? Or do you have some personal problem where you have to inflict your opinion on topics that do not concern you?
Post #59,290 by admin 10/24/02 11:09:14 PM Reply	Because the S/N ratio in here is abyssmal mainly because of this pointless bickering. As such, you are involving the other members of this community, whether or not they are direct participants. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #59,301 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:27:53 PM Reply	And he was improving it? yes/no? Are you improving it? yes/no? If you're not improving it, but you feel obligated to provide your opinion on it, then......
Post #59,302 by boxley 10/24/02 11:29:37 PM Reply	are you insinuating I am not improving it? I do not post without making a point that I hope someone will get. And yes, right shifting this to hell and gone is a point of sorts. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,304 by admin 10/24/02 11:30:31 PM Reply	He was attempting to. By making his displeasure known in the hopes that you would quit the bullshit. As I am doing. As several others have. Get the message yet? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #59,308 by wharris2 10/24/02 11:37:21 PM Reply	Futile hope, I'm afraid, Scott. Once again, although best made in a different area, twit filter requested.
Post #59,320 by Brandioch 10/25/02 12:03:55 AM Reply	Allow me to make this perfectly clear. What pleases or displeases him does not, has not and will not have any effect upon my actions. If I have, somehow, failed to communicate this clearly enough, I hope I have now remedied that. I do not subscribe to political correctness.
Post #59,323 by Silverlock 10/25/02 12:16:18 AM Reply	"I do not subscribe to political correctness." Understood and accepted. Seems like the only thing you do subscribe to lately is bitchiness. Have you ever admitted a mistake, a wrong interpretation, a misunderstood nuance? Please prove me wrong. "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 #59,333 by Brandioch 10/25/02 1:10:25 AM Reply	Check my reply to your other post. Check out the Truman Doctrine. Check out when it was issued. Check out the state of Germany at that time. Yes, I have admitted I was wrong before. When I was wrong.
Post #59,335 by Silverlock 10/25/02 1:18:24 AM Reply	point to a single example. Honestly, I don't remember a single time you have have ever said "I was wrong". My memory may be faulty though. "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 #59,348 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:13:12 AM Reply	Those specific words? Or words to that effect? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=59092\|Ah. I see now.]
Post #59,377 by admin 10/25/02 9:18:09 AM Reply	That much is obvious. But a non sequitur. I was answering a question about S/N. wharris was attempting to improve the S/N here. You, by contrast, are not. Have I made myself clear now? Political correctness has very little to do with this situation, Brandioch. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you are somehow carrying the Torch Of Brusque Illumination here. I don't believe anyone here has failed to miss your point that you believe Screamer was calling a fence a wall. What they are telling you is that 1) being pedantic to the point of irrationality is stupid and 2) shut up about it already. Unless of course you enjoy mental masturbation; we're just letting you know that the sideshow has become boring and we'd like you to get back to discussing stuff that actually matters. This is my last statement to you on the matter. Very soon I will implement 'ignore thread', and for really asinine stuff like this, 'move (sub)thread' and 'lock (sub)thread' features. So at the very least your antics are useful in the generation of new (albeit sadly un-looked-for) features. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #59,424 by Brandioch 10/25/02 12:15:06 PM Reply	Let me put this in small words. I do not think I can explain the Truman Doctrine and "Containment" to someone who is trying to hide the fact that he was not on the border by playing word games over whether "fence" is the same as "wall". Clear enough?
Post #59,480 by wharris2 10/25/02 4:39:25 PM Reply	Re: That much is obvious. Very soon I will implement 'ignore thread', and for really asinine stuff like this, 'move (sub)thread' and 'lock (sub)thread' features. Pity, really, that it has to come to this.
Post #59,486 by admin 10/25/02 5:03:34 PM Reply	Tell me about it. I've got better things to do than clean up after people who can't keep from shitting in their own beds. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #59,153 by screamer 10/24/02 3:12:36 PM Reply	All in all... it's just another brick in the barrier :-) (with apologies to Roger Waters)... 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 #58,728 by dmarker 10/23/02 8:37:42 AM Reply	Re: In defense of Brandioch Mike, Honestly I knew exactly what Brandioch was saying esp when he put " either side of friendly. I will argue that he must be pretty well in touch with current events. I am not passing judgement on your awareness of same - as for Marlowe - what can any intelligent person say - this idiot doesn't seem to grasp that I am Australian despite my constant bombardment of material that makes it 200% clear. If he did know that, his response to my original post shows that his IQ is challenged (when commenting on Ashton's mesa qualities, I was also truly kicking Marlowe in the face over his inverse capacity). You at least show an inquiring mind and an ability to apply reason and a desire to debate points. For that I respect you and enjoy the engagements be they complimentary or face-in-face (we really know we are alive when we do that). Brandioch is pure logic - he (am assuming it is a classic male Irish name & there is no intention here of offending females) is a smart person (very) but unfortunately his intention of delivering 'pure logic' gets lost on so many people who float at levels below his intellect. One needs to be pretty damned smart to outsmart him (which is why poor ole Marlowe gets beaten up so regularly & convincingly - actualy Brandioch vs Marlowe is pure slaughter which is why I , in the past, never or rarely got involved (well I must confess I did start kicking Marlowe in the end, out of pure frustration at his total inability to respond to Brandiochs in-yer-face challenges no matter how simply Brandioch put them)). Anyway, in the end none of this should be so important that we lose touch with day-to-day reality (which is why I kept trying to make 'contact' with Marlowe (working on the theory that we all have some value that together makes a really valuable whole)). I do wonder what reaction we would have to each other if we met face-to-face (all of us, Marlowe included, I half wonder if we would find we actually like each other) as I half jokingly said elsewhere in a post - I am f'ingly right wing, but if I as a person hear right-wingers lie - I get angry (that the diots can so obviously damage our position). Cheers Doug
Post #58,752 by Mike 10/23/02 9:29:07 AM Reply	Thanks I think you might be right that getting together in person would be interesting. Not sure I share the "pure logic" assessment...he combs a debate for anything large or small then fixates once he thinks he has a toe hold. He can make gross errors while your piccadillos are inflated. Effective if all you want to do is win. Anyhow....that's another story I guess :-) I still enjoy tangling with him and have said so in the past. Politics.......not sure what the hell mine are. Coming from England (now living in the States) everything looks right-wing to me :-) I too tend to jump to challenge things which I think are wrong. I don't really have any "agenda" as such. I like to think I learn things here. I like to tyhink that itr will prevent me from getting too naive. -Mike I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,766 by bepatient 10/23/02 10:14:58 AM Reply	ROFLMAO. Man....thats priceless. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,780 by dmarker 10/23/02 10:43:43 AM Reply	Re: To you ? maybe I am happy to avoid a hed-to-head with you because I don't share the others passion for confrontation with you. But, is this a shot across the bow <grin> Cheers Doug
Post #58,784 by bepatient 10/23/02 10:55:11 AM 10/23/02 10:55:43 AM Reply	I'm sure there will be times... ...when we'll disagree on a point or 2...and we may enter a good natured dialogue. I just have to remember not to be drinking any acidic beverages (hurts the nose) when reading certain posts ;-) Pure ???? You used a term that I probably wouldn't have....but it was amusing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Oct. 23, 2002, 10:55:43 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #58,809 by deSitter 10/23/02 11:36:45 AM Reply	Re: In defense of Brandioch I agree, his logic is faultless, so the only way to "defeat" him is to corner him by forcing his logic to accept the verdict of experiment or intuition. -drl
Post #58,927 by Brandioch 10/23/02 4:40:25 PM Reply	Experimentation, yes. Intuition, never. Other than that, cool.
Post #58,979 by deSitter 10/23/02 8:53:18 PM Reply	Didn't think I had it in me, did you Mr. Spock? -drl
Post #58,928 by Ashton 10/23/02 4:43:53 PM Reply	Re: In defense of Brandioch [image\|/forums/images/warning.png\|0\|This is sarcasm...] While I hardly see a need for a 'defense' of the man or his mod- Socratic method - nor a desire to characterize the loyal-opposition via My Perfect Scoring Method - WTF would That be - Meta-debate? ... I believe that Brandioch's 'style' illustrates that most of us derive from a culture which long-ago ceased to present 'debate' (or by any other cockamamie cutesy New name) early-on in school, as a basic and necessary talent to possess: in a society governed, suffused with and bulldozed by sly innuendo, sophomoric and sanctimonious theological-pap masquerading as thought + ALL of the listed standard logic-errors (lists now available on the web! yet) etc. While -yes- he often does drill-down to the underlying fallacy with laser precision, still we are all forced to the higher scale of umm 'Reason' via the ever-present need for context. I deem his score not-perfect in that, but less-imperfect than much obfuscating quips intended to oppose. (There is no one here IMhO including self (OK Self too) capable of a 100% 'score' on context and Reason! (That one would be a Sage. Hah!!) ... let-alone possessed of that Revealed-Truth\ufffd which only the terminally demented allot to selves. Like my Gramma, for a precise example. If one needs an example. Personally I consider Brandioch a cohort in at least one major regard - we appear both to despise the morass of stupid labels (which people even claim proudly for selves!) - and which practice virtually guarantees the shallowness and juvenile name-calling which has always passed for 'debate' in those incapable of such - in our actively anti-intellectual Kultur. (I don't imagine that we two agree on all semi-important matters, nor does perfect agreement ever signify very much except maybe folie a deux ;-) But at least in some disagreement, there would not intrude 'Valuez' or 'Liberty' as abstracts - and all the other illegible and vague blab-words like The Murican Peepul Believe that ___. That oasis alone, causes me to almost look for something to twit him about; I'd bloody well have to remain alert to er 'prevail' = Earn those valuable Ego-Points and exchange them for Frequent Fooler kilometers. OK {sigh} back to straw-Repos VS ~~Moderates~~ the straw-Libruls [all 123 of these, hiding incognito in a cave in Orange County, I guess]. I still appreciate the best of these foribusicums; many here have risen to the level of eloquence on occasion - and that is a rare and valuable achievement.. in a society actively succumbing to general and increasing dumbth in all civilized matters. And now about to lead us all into a prolonged depression (in every single nuance); soon to be despised by even more fellow-Terrans, to boot: (WTF - ask any 20 yo who 'Pandora' was. Or 40 yo? QED) We elitists always say, After all, the poverty of one's psyche - begins from being carefully taught trite homilies by a shallow parent within a banal culture. And Walking Tall with that burden.
Post #58,942 by screamer 10/23/02 5:22:45 PM Reply	On liars... and grammatical tyrants... if you appease and agrandize them, it only encourages that behavior. A few weeks ago, I got into a debate with someone in this fora who claimed that I was a liar (that I had not been stationed in Germany at the border... I wish I hadn't been, but indeed was... At the border site I was on there was a really impressive wall that cut through the town of Wobeck) because I didn't agree with his major premise "whatever the hell it was that time"... I just now have been able to find the time to read those posts. I am extremely offended that someone who doesn't even know me would claim that I didn't have a background that I know that I have to try and eak out some sort of face saving in a debate that he was ill equipped to take on. I baited him, but in my wildest imagination, wouldn't have dreamed he would take it to the extreme he did. If you'd like to know more about me personally, I have a web page at [link\|http://www.nd.edu/~dreck\|http://www.nd.edu/~dreck] . I'll see if I can't find a few pictures in the shoebox of me at the "barrier" that ran the entire length of East/West Germany just in case Brandioch might think I would "lie" on my resume. Sometimes I wonder if maybe the motive for his defense of tyrants might be... respect? I concur that Brandioch is intelligent. But "logical" is in the eye of the beholder. I have beheld him for about 6 years now and I can say that from my humble opinion, he doesn't know that much about the "soft sciences", history, tact, diplomacy, or Aristotelian logic. Get him talking about computers, Linux, Science, or Mathematics and he is a savant. Unfortunately in the SS (soft sciences) forums, he plods around the trees of a debate like a lumberjack and hasn't a clue what forest he's in. I don't blame Mike one iota for challenging him on a quotation mark. Mike's point "that's it isn't all about the oil", is totally lost in the noise. It's a strategy. Most of us do not posess the time for point by point debate, especially not the kind Brandi's been known to pull. Now, cutting through the noise in these current threads and having thought through this whole situation (in an attempt to find the forest), I would like to propose we use the analogy of a crackhouse to represent Iraq or N. Korea. :-) We may all agree that it's probably not a good idea to have a crackhouse around, but to go in without due process is a sticking point. Many of the citizen's of this country are used to the concept of the police (in this analogy, the US - probably should be the UN) busting down the doors with guns blaring and ridding the neighborhood of the crack house, especially if there are known felons inside (especially if it makes to Wildest Police Orgies sitcom/reality TVideo). Others might advocate waiting until the crackheads come out and start robbing and or shooting the folks around them, because they "technically" aren't doing anything wrong until they start affecting others. To me, there are two major points of contention surrounding all of the noise. 1. Who is the United States to play the role of law enforcer, etc...? 2. What due process should be given to Iraq / North Korea / Afghanistan? Having stated this, there are obviously subpoints, like how do you use due process with countries that do not subscribe to your laws? etc... Either you believe that the crackhouse should be overrun before the crackheads threaten you or you don't. Each side in this issue has valid points to be made, but in the final analysis, one isn't likely to change their mind... That said, many of us understand your and Brandioch's point of view regarding Iraq, we simply don't agree with it. We believe it to be simplistic and naive. Not trying to be cute here, just using plain talk. 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 #58,951 by Mike 10/23/02 6:16:51 PM Reply	Thoughts Well said. I've been called a liar by him also. Not just..I think you are lying on topic X..... just outright a liar....... I think Brandi will use anything to "win". I was somewhat shocked to hear him described as having perfect logic. He definitely tries to portray this in his posting style......sometimes he even succeeds :-) One aspect of the style is to break your post into discrete sections then seem to be addressing each one in turn. But he will intentionally avoid or simply dismiss your best points. All the while his radar is up for your most benign inconsistency/mistake which then becomes his primary focus. He excuses his own mistakes with defences which he would not accord another in a heartbeat. I can't be bothered to get the link...but I remember him claiming that I was asking him to use "weasel words" when he had over generalised on something or other. If he makes an error of fact/judgement....he will keep slicin' and keep dicin' his arguments and eventually he will find himself at a place he can defend again. If its something he can't slice/dice........... he's outta there. If you make a good point he sees absolutely nothing wrong with dismissing it with the most absurd and/or vacuous responses...and then moving quickly on to his agenda. You have to hand it to him, its definitely an effective style of argument. I balk at having it described as sophisticated or logical though. He has adopted positions which (in my opinion) fly squarely in the face of logic. But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong. Even though Brandioch can be annoying.....we still keep coming back don't we? I'd rather be with him than be without him. He's an important fixture in the community. Anyway.....my two cents. -Mike P.S. All in all I like to listen more than I like to talk...which is why you will see me go silent for long periods. But when I do write .. I think the most satisfying moments are when you get some positive feedback from someone else. "Nice point" can make an otherwise grey day seem great. Oh that...and triggering an enormous thread. I get a kick out of that too :-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,958 by screamer 10/23/02 6:48:29 PM Reply	I'm actually a fan of his style in other fora... and have agreed with him on many points. When there was a debate with Marlowe on the nature of "facts", although seemingly agreeing with Khasim, I was also pointing out that there is a lot of grey area in most areas of study, even in mathematics (how can you really have a "negative" number? or how many data points fall between 1 and 2? etc...). Let alone in World Politics. I am not an expert in Politics and or World History. I am well read and have a good memory. That said... History is relative. If we both witness the same car crash on the same day, we may provide completely contrary descriptions of the event because of our perceptual filters, etc... Well... You know all this stuff. I miss the old Brandioch/Khasim. His old style got tedious, but it was without the personal insults. This is a relatively new dimension to his "style" and (knowing that opinions are like buttholes) I don't really care for his new style. Especially how it has been directed at others in this fora. I have basically just jumped in when I thought things were getting out of hand. Khasim - drop the Bill Pathetic stuff please. You obviously disagree with him politically and you should continue to do so :-), but the tact of name calling, questioning people's backgrounds, etc... is kid's stuff and not appropriate for someone of your perceived intellect. I am a long time fan of your Linux threads, and many of your other posts are classic. I'm personally mad at you for the post I read earlier in the "Germany" thread, but I'll get over that. Our last few exchanges have not been very productive, but there is always tomorrow... 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 #58,978 by bepatient 10/23/02 8:51:52 PM Reply	I won't be holding my breath ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,962 by Brandioch 10/23/02 7:14:59 PM Reply	Awww, is the big bad man being mean to you? Well said. I've been called a liar by him also. Not just..I think you are lying on topic X..... just outright a liar....... Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you could be telling a lie and not be a liar. Imagine my embarrasement. I'm so sorry. [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=liar\|The dictionary says] Well, I can certainly understand your position now. We'll just skip being limited by the dictionary definitions of words, then, shall we? Oh, but then, you were assuming that you understood what I meant when I called you a liar, weren't you. And your assumption had some resemblence to the dictionary definition, didn't it? I think Brandi will use anything to "win". No. But I will not accept people switching words in their position when their position would be completely different if the other words had been used in the beginning. One aspect of the style is to break your post into discrete sections then seem to be addressing each one in turn. But only seem to be, correct? Yet it should be very simple to point out the flaws. After all, I tend to keep each point very specific and isolated from the other points. Such as here. But he will intentionally avoid or simply dismiss your best points. But it should be easy to point out where I did so. Again, I keep my points specific and isolated. All the while his radar is up for your most benign inconsistency/mistake which then becomes his primary focus. Ah, so your position can have a flaw, and it doesn't mean that your position is flawed? Other than that, I see a lot of claims you make about me and no substantiation.
Post #58,996 by wharris2 10/23/02 11:51:47 PM Reply	Typical. One other reason I'd more like a "twit" filter than a search function or a "show only new forum posts" function.
Post #59,060 by Mike 10/24/02 11:01:38 AM Reply	Yes <snif> You are now arguing with yourself. >>Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you could be telling >>a lie and not be a liar. a) establish a truism for yourself b) start defending it Okay.....I'll play. Hmmmmmmmmmm Brandioch......I'm not so sure.....is that necessarily true? I mean I have lots of friends who told a lie......BUT THEN....RECANTED!!!!!! they have now since recanted lying forever. TADA! They are no longer liars. This is the kind of shit you like to play......RIGHT? Your next move is perhaps to challenge why I even brought it up then. If you just call someone a liar the person cannot defend themselves. If you make an allegation of a lie....it can be challenged on the specifics. AND........... When it turns out that you were WRONG.......you MIGHT have to apologise! However.......if you label them as a liar......one small blunder on your part doesn't necessarily defeat that. And you stil have a position you can defend (no matter how illogical that position might be based on all the evidence). >>We'll just skip being limited by the dictionary definitions of >>words, then, shall we? Absolutely beaooootiful! "Shall we discuss WWII? Millions killed. Yet we still maintained rule of law." I questioned this because I thought it was ignorant and stupid (and incidentally blows away just about any other error of understanding/judgement i have ever read in this forum". [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25634\|Link] Then after much circular waffling attempt to replace the contention above with a variety of OTHER tautologies....(if say X, if I say Y etc. etc.) .....this is where you end up. >>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. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=26118\|Link] But NOW......NOW......the precision and use of words is important again. Tell me.......what governs what mode you are in at any given time? Don't bother...I know the answer.....you are in the mode which you think is most likely to win. -Mike P.S. You owe screamer an apology. You are allowed to conclude that he may have made a slip when he said "wall". You should then move on because its the appropriate thing to do. Calling him a liar.....you are not at liberty to conclude when he is able to provide clear evidence to the contrary. (At least in any self-respecting medium/forum which I would like to be associated with) Mr WDYHASM-now-I'm-going-to-define-America-for-you. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,960 by Brandioch 10/23/02 7:03:26 PM Reply	Care to link to that? You said there was a wall. I said there was NOT. You said I was wrong. I posted pictures. You said I was wrong because I didn't accept "guard towers and fence" as wall as in "the Berlin Wall". Now you're switching to "barrier". I've noticed that a lot in liars. They never stick to their original claim. Sometimes I wonder if maybe the motive for his defense of tyrants might be... respect? Hmmm, I wonder if you could post a link to a post of my "defense of tyrants". I don't think you will be able to because I haven't done such. Another lie from you. Oh, now you're going to start changing and re-defining that claim. By "defense", you actually meant...... something else. By "tyrants", you actually meant...... something else. That's right. You can make any claim you want, and when you're called on it, you claim that the words you used didn't mean what they meant. Right. Typical behaviour from a liar. I concur that Brandioch is intelligent. But "logical" is in the eye of the beholder. I have beheld him for about 6 years now and I can say that from my humble opinion, he doesn't know that much about the "soft sciences", history, tact, diplomacy, or Aristotelian logic. Strange how I seem to be able to reference historical events. But I don't know history. As for tact and diplomacy, why should I employ such when you're just going to lie about it? And, finally, as to "Aristotelian logic", you claim a fence is a wall as the Berlin Wall was a wall. Sorry, but your logic is flawed, that means that you are incapable of judging whether my logic is flawed. Others might advocate waiting until the crackheads come out and start robbing and or shooting the folks around them, because they "technically" aren't doing anything wrong until they start affecting others. Incorrect. They are breaking the law regarding possession and distribution of controlled substances.
Post #58,964 by boxley 10/23/02 7:18:00 PM Reply	Oh you need a link? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/board/search/?field_searchUser=38&field_searchSubject=&field_searchContent=right&field_searchSignature=&field_searchForum=47&field_boardid=1&submit_ok%3Amethod=Search\|Ive got yer link right here] me dux, thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,011 by Brandioch 10/24/02 2:13:56 AM Reply	Am I missing something? I see a bunch of links to my previous posts. But I don't see a single statement in any of them that could be interpreted as "defense of tyrants". Did I miss something in your links?
Post #59,036 by Another Scott 10/24/02 8:27:44 AM Reply	He did have a "me dux". I think that means... he was pulling your chain. Perhaps Bill should start using The Sign. This has been a public service announcement... Cheers, Scott.
Post #59,045 by boxley 10/24/02 9:44:55 AM Reply	I did a search based on hopefully all of your posts :-) you act a bit tyrannical at times. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,092 by Brandioch 10/24/02 12:26:41 PM Reply	Ah. I see now. Thanks. :) I think. :)
Post #59,005 by screamer 10/24/02 12:53:39 AM Reply	Thank you... I think that most intelligent human beings would have walked away from reading that exchange by saying "he's accusing Dan of being a liar because he never was in the Army as a Russian linguist and on a border site right fucking next to the WALL"... It's irrelevent that the thread was actually about occupational forces and Germany after WWII was a prime example of how conquering countries are notorious for keeping troups in those countries so that they can no longer threaten their neighbors by rebuilding their militaries. A FUCKING TANGENT THAT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED AND YOUR DOING. And you are doing that a lot lately. You are an asshole who is accusing me of being a liar by stating that I am not who I think I am? I have the forms. I know who I am and where I've been. I can verify it. I don't give a flying fuck what you think, but this is a public forum. I've posted a link to my website that clearly lists the battalion I was in. This is a picture of me in the Army in my bio. In other words, you, sir, are accusing me of being a liar and are wrong. I was in the Army, a Russian linguist and stationed in Germany. ahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaha You're wrong, you may be ignorant, but I still wouldn't accuse YOU of being a liar, even though I know that I am right about my background (hell, I was there :-) ). You see how childish this gets? Take a few minutes Khasim and think before you post. You have been wearing your heart on your sleeve. You obviously have strong feelings about your positions as does everyone here. It seems like your only goal lately has been to "win" a debate regardless of tactic or logic. Stress in your life? Think for a minute about what I'm saying. I didn't accuse you of not being in the military or in intelligence when you have said some blatantly ignorant things (I've even wondered to myself - "this guy couldn't possibly have been in intell and be that friggin naive"), but I would never publicly accuse you of being a liar... It's bullshit. 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 #59,016 by Brandioch 10/24/02 3:17:48 AM Reply	You have the same pattern as always. I think that most intelligent human beings would have walked away from reading that exchange by saying "he's accusing Dan of being a liar because he never was in the Army as a Russian linguist and on a border site right fucking next to the WALL"... Again, you exhibit the exact same behaviour pattern. The fact that you thought there was a wall running all the way along the East/West German border means that you were not there (there being at the border). Now, whether you were a Russian linguist or not or were in the army or not...... has not been demonstrated either true or false. But you have to throw those in there because, if it can be shown that PART of your claim is true, then you hope that simple minded people will believe ALL of your claim. That is why I deconstruct statements and claims to their components. That is why you can't deal with such formats. A FUCKING TANGENT THAT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED AND YOUR DOING. No. You were attempting to support your statement with claims about your expertise. It's irrelevent that the thread was actually about occupational forces and Germany after WWII was a prime example of how conquering countries are notorious for keeping troups in those countries so that they can no longer threaten their neighbors by rebuilding their militaries. And my position was that such was not the case. That the US military was there to stop the Soviets from sweeping through and taking over Germany. To stop the Soviets from taking over Germany. Not to stop the Germans from taking over anyone else. And my support for my position is that our mission over there was STILL to prevent the Soviets from taking over Germany up until 1990 when I left. That is why we were ready to nuke Germany because the Russians had more tanks and conventional forces than we had there. That is why we went through REFORGER (REturn FORces to GERmany) exercises all the time. You are an asshole who is accusing me of being a liar by stating that I am not who I think I am? Again, you have more than a little trouble following a very simple statement. I don't know WHO you THINK you are. I am saying that you were NOT at the border when there was a border. Can you TRY to keep that in mind? I have the forms. But not the memories. I've heard of this before. Maybe you repressed them. I know who I am and where I've been. And you know you've been to a wall that exended along the East/West German border. Yes, again, there are mental conditions that would explain that. No such wall existed. I can verify it. Strangely enough, it was I who posted the photographic evidence to "prove" that there was not wall. Go ahead, prove there was one. Photographs would be handy. No, I don't think you will, will you? In other words, you, sir, are accusing me of being a liar and are wrong. So you claim. Yet you also claimed that there was this wall...... I was in the Army, a Russian linguist and stationed in Germany. "in the Army" - maybe. That hasn't been established or disproven. "a Russian linguist" - maybe. That hasn't been established or disproven. "stationed in Germany" - maybe. That hasn't been established or disproven. Again, notice the pattern. None of that was what I said. None of that DIRECTLY deals with your claim about there being a wall between the two Germany's. Rather, you'll go on and on and on about OTHER THINGS. The wall you claimed to have seen did not exist. I have provided photographic evidence that it did not exist. ahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaha Cute. But your pattern of behaviour is still in evidence. The wall you saw where there was no wall. You're wrong, you may be ignorant, but I still wouldn't accuse YOU of being a liar, even though I know that I am right about my background (hell, I was there :-) ). You see how childish this gets? Here's your statement. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55747\|nits and LMAO] I was on border sites (THE FUCKING WALL) nowhere near Berlin... It ran the entire length of the country. Then, after I show the pictures of what was really there.... 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? It seems that you were very sure it was a "FUCKING WALL". Whatever. Take a few minutes Khasim and think before you post. Considering the time it takes me to research the links I put into my posts, I think I spend enough time thinking before posting. Think for a minute about what I'm saying. I didn't accuse you of not being in the military or in intelligence when you have said some blatantly ignorant things (I've even wondered to myself - "this guy couldn't possibly have been in intell and be that friggin naive"), but I would never publicly accuse you of being a liar... It's bullshit. No. I was NBC. But it's nice to know that you've never pointed out points where I've been wrong. Of course, now you're claiming that such points existed. Nice try. Same pattern. But nice try. Keep mixing the....well, how do I phrase this without using the word "lie", maybe "untruth" or "inaccuracy" or some such.... with the facts. And keep hoping that someone will believe the entire statement because parts of it are factual. Again, I'll demonstrate this in a very simple manner. #1. You've never accused me of not being in the military when I was naive about something that someone in intel would not be. (TRUE) #2. Such instances have occured. (FALSE) But, keep on trying. I'm sure you'll convince someone, eventually.
Post #59,049 by Silverlock 10/24/02 10:00:27 AM Reply	Enough already So the "wall" wasn't a literal wall. BFD. If that is worth harping over to this extent, you really need to get out more. Stop fixating on minor points and try to understand that no one really cares if it was a wall, a fence or a goddamn strip of yellow tape but you. I hereby declare that whenever you see the word "wall" you will replace it with the word "barrier". "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 #59,101 by Brandioch 10/24/02 12:44:43 PM Reply	You left out the OTHER bits. He also claimed that I had defended tyranny in the past. Yet he has not posted any links to support that claim. Stop fixating on minor points and try to understand that no one really cares if it was a wall, a fence or a goddamn strip of yellow tape but you. Like I said, it is part of the pattern he has. Sprinkle the facts in with the lies and then attempt to shift the blame when he is called on the lies. I hereby declare that whenever you see the word "wall" you will replace it with the word "barrier". Nice. Wall == "barrier" -and- Fence == "barrier" -therefore- Wall == Fence Works in math. Fails in language. Tell you what. If I accept that, then you accept all of Bush's little mis-statements and such? Hi ho! Hi ho! It's off to war we go! I guess the correct usage of language is just a problem that I have. Not anyone else.
Post #59,109 by Mike 10/24/02 1:04:27 PM Reply	Smile >>I guess the correct usage of language is just a problem that I have. Except for when you want to designate it using "weasel words" of course. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,130 by Silverlock 10/24/02 1:48:35 PM Reply	This sketch is just silly </Monty Python> It's time for something completely different. "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 #59,132 by pwhysall 10/24/02 1:55:14 PM Reply	The Larch. The Larch. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #59,142 by snork 10/24/02 2:20:10 PM Reply	A man with three buttocks "With the bravery of being out of range." - Roger Waters \r\n \r\nCliff
Post #59,058 by screamer 10/24/02 10:46:19 AM Reply	Last chance... Look, shit for brains, I know who I am and where I was. You have demonstrated nothing but your own ignorance in this and many threads. In your words "The fact that you thought there was a wall running all the way along the East/West German border means that you were not there (there being at the border)." The fact is, I was there and I knew there was a wall/barrier/fence/guarded area/whateverthefuckyouwishtoparseitas running down the entire length of the country because I was there and on the border as a Russian linguist. This is what I am trying to tell you. Your logic is flawed. You surmise that I was not there because I do not agree with your circuitous parsing and twisting of English. In the context of the original post, I never mentioned Berlin or the Berlin Wall (or Field Station Berlin, Checkpoint Charlie, the Brandenburg Gate, Kudamstrasse)... YOU DID. I was in Berlin for only a brief period of time. I said that the Russians were so paranoid of a reunified Germany that they build a wall through the entire country. You had nothing intelligent to rebut that premise with so you started parsing the definition of what a wall is. I called you ridiculous and left it alone. When I finally had a chance to catch up on these fora, I saw that more noise came out of that exchange. I was willing to let it die, but when you accuse me of being a liar about my own background, that's another kettle of fish. You need to step back. Got it. You are fucking wrong, you were then and even more so now and if you would be so kind to admit it and apologize, I will let this go. If not, I'll treat you like the Michel Merlin you have become ----oooooOOOOOoooooo----- 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 #59,068 by bepatient 10/24/02 11:21:14 AM Reply	Mon Dieu... the Merlin guantlet! You >are< serious ;) You have one up on me...since you are ex-DOD you can qualify for international expert...I can't since I wasn't military and didn't have PX priviledges;-) C'mon Dan...don't let him drag you there...he's not interested in right or wrong, truth or fallacy any longer...he's only trying to get under your skin. Oh...and you were right (hee hee) about needing someone to challenge my politics...if I wasn't here (and severely exaggerating in many cases)...the politics forum would list very hard to port very quickly. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,111 by Brandioch 10/24/02 1:10:46 PM Reply	Awww, are you having trouble with your memory? Look, shit for brains, I know who I am and where I was. #1. I never said ANYTHING about who you were. #2. You might have been "there" (geographically) but not "there" at the border when it was a border. Nice little twist you tried, again. You have demonstrated nothing but your own ignorance in this and many threads. That's right. I make a statement and post photographic proof and I'm the one that is ignorant? This must be one of your new definitions of "ignorant". Like "wall". In your words "The fact that you thought there was a wall running all the way along the East/West German border means that you were not there (there being at the border)." Yes. And I still stand by them. Duh! The fact is, I was there and I knew there was a wall/barrier/fence/guarded area/whateverthefuckyouwishtoparseitas running down the entire length of the country because I was there and on the border as a Russian linguist. Ah, note how you start altering your statements once I provide photographic evidence that is counter to your claims. You alter your claim to include the evidence I presented. And you get upset at me for providing the photographic evidence that refuted your previous claim. This is what I am trying to tell you. Your logic is flawed. Yes, that is what you are trying to tell me. That is so you can hide from the fact that you were caught in a lie. wall == barrier -and- fence == barrier -therefore- wall == fence And you are trying to say that I am the one with the flawed logic? That works in math, but not in english. And I have to explain this to an adult? You surmise that I was not there because I do not agree with your circuitous parsing and twisting of English. No. I deduce that you were not at the border when there was a border there because you're claiming to have seen something that was not there. But it is my "circuitious parsing and twisting of English"? I seem to recall that it was YOU who is trying to claim that a wall is a fence. In the context of the original post, I never mentioned Berlin or the Berlin Wall (or Field Station Berlin, Checkpoint Charlie, the Brandenburg Gate, Kudamstrasse)... YOU DID. Bzzzzzttttt!!!!! Incorrect. I did NOT mention: #1. Field Station Berlin #2. the Brandenburg Gate #3. Kudamstrasse Is it even POSSIBLE for you to stick to the facts? Is this problem with the truth a psychological one for you? I said that the Russians were so paranoid of a reunified Germany that they build a wall through the entire country. You had nothing intelligent to rebut that premise with so you started parsing the definition of what a wall is. No. You asked if I had ever left Berlin because the FUCKING WALL (your words) ran through the entire country. Now, the wall in Berlin was a wall. There wasn't a wall through Germany. Anyone who would THINK there was a wall through Germany was NOT at the border. You are fucking wrong, you were then and even more so now and if you would be so kind to admit it and apologize, I will let this go. I'm so happy you feel that way. I'm sorry you're a liar. I'm sorry this problem is pathological with you. I'm sorry you feel that the only way you can make a point is through lies and semantic games. There, willing to let it drop now?
Post #59,131 by Mike 10/24/02 1:52:19 PM Reply	Better conclusion >>Anyone who would THINK there was a wall through Germany was NOT at the border. Better yet: Anyone who slips up and uses the word "wall" inadvertently.....will have their history rewritten on their behalf. I cite the prior posts as evidence. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,150 by screamer 10/24/02 3:07:40 PM Reply	Thank you again... crackhead, for you have (unwittingly) given me a chance to tie this neatly together. I can now summarize the meta of this whole debate as "are we (the US/UN) justified in using force against Iraq?" With your help, I have come to the conclusion that appeasement of tyrants (be they minor tyrants with keyboards or major tyrants with armies and weapons of mass destruction) is not a good long term strategy, it just seems to embolden them. A non response is regarded as tacit approval. I was too busy working to respond to your tiring posting style and "left it alone"... A few weeks goes by and I rejoin to find that your hands have not remained "idle" nor have you had any gestalts... In other words, you haven't changed, in fact you've been very busy - much like I suspect that Saddam Hussein has been. You just keep repeating the same manta and doublespeak - much like governments do. For (goodandplenty, goodandplenty, goodandplenty) repetition is sometimes an effective brainwashing technique. When called out on it, you simply do Pavlovian more of same... I will give you high points for consistency at least. But, I digress... I conclude (brazenly - hardly a "random sample" or high population :-) ) that appeasement, as a strategy, is not effective. I think that it only emboldens the adversary. Sincere thanks for the insight and, unlike you, I could be wrong... and you really should start practicing using the following separator in your posts: ----oooooOOooooooo------ Just a few thoughts, Screamer take all your overgrown infants away somewhere and build them a home a little place of their own the fletcher memorial home for incurable tyrants and kings and they can appears to themselves every day on closed circut t.v. to make sure their still real it's the only connection they feel "ladies and gentlemen, please welcome reagan and heig mr. begin and friend mrs. thatcher and paisley mr. brezhnev and party the ghost of nixon and now adding colour a group of anonymous latin american meat packing glitterati" did they expect us to treat them with any respect they can polish their medals and sharpen their smails, and amuse themselves playing games for a while boom boom, bang bang, lie down your dead safe in the permanent gaze of a cold glass eye with their favourite toys they'll be good girls and boys in the fletcher memorial home for colonial wasters of life and limb is everyone in? are you having a nice time? now the final solution can be applied R. Waters - the fletcher memorial home
Post #59,170 by Brandioch 10/24/02 3:49:07 PM Reply	Claim whatever you want. The facts are, you have lied about a wall that wasn't there, you have lied about me bring up other areas in Germany, you have lied about me defending tyrants. But that does NOT make you a liar. Because you know what you are. And it is my problem if I want to stick to the facts.
Post #59,194 by Mike 10/24/02 4:33:07 PM 10/24/02 4:34:15 PM Reply	Deny, deny, deny [link\|http://www.ddr5.homestead.com/files/gm/gm.html\|Inner Germany Border Museum] [link\|http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3080/aug13.htm\|Wall at M\ufffddlenreuth] Extract: Our excursion today brought us to the former East-West German border to a little village called M\ufffddlenreuth which has left part of the wall standing as a museum. This village was divided in half by the inner-German wall, one very similar to that in Berlin. I tactfully suggest that this may be a good time drop the issue. -Mike I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Edited by Mike Oct. 24, 2002, 04:34:15 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,229 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:56:29 PM Reply	What are you denying?
Post #59,325 by Mike 10/25/02 12:26:29 AM Reply	????????????? Okay moron...gonna have ta start a new thread for this one :-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,199 by Mike 10/24/02 4:42:11 PM Reply	FYI [link\|http://www.ddr5.homestead.com/files/gm/gm.html\|Inner Germany Border Museum] [link\|http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3080/aug13.htm\|Wall at M\ufffddlenreuth] I think its okay to say wall :-) -Mike I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,077 by ChrisR 10/24/02 11:48:36 AM Reply	non sequiter The fact that you thought there was a wall running all the way along the East/West German border means that you were not there (there being at the border). Well, if you can't see the flaws in this syllogism, then you obviously don't have a logical mind. You are intentionally twisting words in this semantic game, purely for the purposes of sophistry. One might think that this would be a good debating tactic, but when the methodology is transparent, it fails to be convincing. All I see is that another person no being as guarded in their use of language. In many, if not most circles, referring to the barrier between East and West Germany as a Wall would be acceptable - especially since it produces the correct symbolism of seperation between the two countries. Think of it this way, the Berlin Wall was not famous because it was a Wall in the literal sense. It was famous because of what it represented - a complete split of the German nation betwixt East and West. From the dictionary: [link\|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary\|Wall]: 6 : something resembling a wall (as in appearance, function, or effect); especially : something that acts as a barrier or defense - a wall of reserve - tariff wall. Even aside from the fact that you have in no way shape or fashion proven that the person in question lied about there being a "Wall", the second part of the syllogism also does not hold. Even if he lied, it does not logically follow that he was "not there". Perhaps it might cast doubt on whether or not he was there, but it does not establish it as fact. Since this syllogism is constructed as: General Premise: you thought there was a wall Specific Conclusion: you were not there I'd have to say your logic is inherently flawed. That the US military was there to stop the Soviets from sweeping through and taking over Germany. I'd probably agree with this premise, though I dislike oversimplification that this is the only reason US troops were there - similar to the line that the only reason for the US threatening to go to war with Iraq is oil.
Post #59,085 by deSitter 10/24/02 12:02:46 PM Reply	(grumble) non sequitur (no hyphen) -drl
Post #59,088 by ChrisR 10/24/02 12:09:30 PM Reply	At least I left the hyphen out. :-)
Post #59,103 by Brandioch 10/24/02 12:47:15 PM Reply	Again. wall == "barrier" -and- fence == "barrier" -therefore- wall == fence If you have trouble understanding the flaw in that "logic", then it is not my problem.
Post #59,119 by Mike 10/24/02 1:33:36 PM Reply	I recommend.... That you try the mathematical symbol for "approximate" in your formulas. Work's great. And ya know what....... it works! :-) [link\|http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci822424,00.html\|Link] -Mike P.S. See they even have "weasel symbols" in mathematics. But then you knew that didn't you? I wonder why it didn't occur to you to use this though. Hmmmmm are you ignorant of mathematics or did you intentionally avoid this because it makes your point look..........ummmm......silly? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,121 by ChrisR 10/24/02 1:36:03 PM Reply	Language is not mathematics If you have trouble understanding the flaw in that "logic", then it is not my problem. In the current instance, I don't see logic, I see quibbling and an overreaching conclusion. Unlike mathematics, language is rarely as precise. Language involves the use of symbols to represent that which one is trying to communicate. Truly transitive properties of words are fairly rare. Words are not discrete instances that can be displayed in simple forms of algebra as you have done. If you were to apply the language of mathematics, a more appropriate approach would be Set Theory - where each word in the english language is not a single value, but rather a set of ideas. In the current instance, one might infer that wall and fence are subsets of the concept pf a barrier, and then try to conclude that the subset that represents wall is a distinct subset from those that represent fence. Unfortunately, the idea of sets is much grayer in the art of communication. Fence and wall may not be synonomous, but in many instances they are interchangeable in connotation - quite frequently overlapping. Now, if you think such "loose" use of the language misrepresents the facts, then instead of pretensions of having won the argument, why don't you simply ask Dan about his experience and perceptions during the course of his supposed stay along the iron curtain. All I see is a ploy to intentionally obfuscate the discussion by jumping on a single use of a word in a much wider context. Instead of furthering your original argument, which is lost in the sideshow, you have entered the arena of playing semantic games. As I said, your logic is inherently flawed. Simply restating the contention in a pseudo-mathematical form does nothing to further the argument. A fence is, symbolically speaking, a form of a wall, and it is semantically within reason to use the term to denote a barrier between two countries - the particular physical form being immaterial. Of course, the flaw in the original line of reasoning is that it relies solely on authority. You say you were at the Berlin Wall and that therefore you know exactly why the US troops were there. Dan says he was stationed at the border (referring metaphorically to the wall that existed between east & west) and that he thinks he knows why the US troops were there. Had Dan agreed with you in your reasoning, you'd have probably not jumped on him for using the word wall. In truth, neither one of you has shown enough authority to give an objective assessment of the rationale behind US troops in Germany. Both experiences are little more than single experiences in a much larger sea. Since both of you were not privvy to the upper level decision making process, you can not credibly determine the precise reasoning. You are free to speculate and offer reasoning for your opinion, but the argument will not sway based on authority.
Post #59,135 by Silverlock 10/24/02 2:03:53 PM Reply	Good post Well said. Let's hope this puts to rest the whole "wall" imbroglio. "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 #59,144 by Brandioch 10/24/02 2:29:05 PM Reply	That was my point. wall == barrier -and- fence == barrier -therefore- wall == fence works in math, but not in language. Fence and wall may not be synonomous, but in many instances they are interchangeable in connotation - quite frequently overlapping. True. Which is where the issue of context comes in. In most instances, they are NOT interchangable. These instances include times when one is refering to physical structures. Now, if you think such "loose" use of the language misrepresents the facts, then instead of pretensions of having won the argument, why don't you simply ask Dan about his experience and perceptions during the course of his supposed stay along the iron curtain. Why? Because I don't feel the need to wade through more of such "loose" use of language. Let me try it this way. Screamer used Mr. X's claims as support for his position. One of Mr. X's claims was that he was at the border. I refuted this by providing photographic evidence that Mr. X's claim to being at a wall was false because there wasn't such a wall. The same as if you had stated that the M-1 tank armour is made out of cheese. I then provide proof showing that it is made of steel. Are you then going to argue about whether cheese == steel? As I said, your logic is inherently flawed. Simply restating the contention in a pseudo-mathematical form does nothing to further the argument. Not to you. But it does demonstrate the FLAW in YOUR logic. wall == barrier -and- fence == barrier -therefore- wall == fence Obviously incorrect. Yet that is what has been claimed. A fence is, symbolically speaking, a form of a wall, and it is semantically within reason to use the term to denote a barrier between two countries - the particular physical form being immaterial. And cheese is steel, if viewed in the correct symbolic structure. So, what is with you people and the semantic games?
Post #59,151 by altmann 10/24/02 3:09:59 PM 10/24/02 3:22:53 PM Reply	...and ceramic composites -- Chris Altmann Edited by altmann Oct. 24, 2002, 03:22:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,156 by ChrisR 10/24/02 3:24:05 PM Reply	Repitition is tedious wall == barrier -and- fence == barrier -therefore- wall == fence Obviously incorrect. Yet that is what has been claimed. If you want to express it mathematically, express it in terms of Sets. The above equations are emphatically wrong - from start to finish - and therefore meaningless. Wall and barrier are not equalavent terms. Fence and barrier are not equivalent terms. One might say that walls and fences are forms or types of barriers - e.g. subsets. But one would not say that a fence is exactly the same as a barrier. If the form of the equation were true, then the following mathematical property should hold. fence = barrier barrier = fence Or if you want the English form, the following two statements are not identical: A fence is a barrier. A barrier is a fence. Before you can even began to worry about a transitive proof, you must first prove that the first two theorems hold true. As I said, you are using pseudo-math. One of Mr. X's claims was that he was at the border. I refuted this by providing photographic evidence that Mr. X's claim to being at a wall was false because there wasn't such a wall. The logic used to arrive at your conclusion is torturous at best. At worst, it is a willful promulgation of drivel. Instead of asking the person to clarify what they meant by being at THE FUCKING WALL, you intentionally are promoting a misunderstanding. Any attempt by you to continue promoting this line of reasoning without ascertaining the exact nature of the person's experience, just shows that you are simply being intransigent. If you can't see the obvious flaw in both your process of reasoning and your method of argumentation, then I think you deserve to be stripped of the title of logical person.
Post #59,179 by Brandioch 10/24/02 4:07:43 PM Reply	Thanks for seeing my point. If you want to express it mathematically, express it in terms of Sets. The above equations are emphatically wrong - from start to finish - and therefore meaningless. EXACTLY! And that is how it was PHRASED by Screamer. I only put it down in a format that could EASILY be understood. Wall and barrier are not equalavent terms. Accourding to Screamer, they are. Not only are wall and barrier equivalent terms, but wall, barrier and FENCE are equivalent terms. Not by MY claim, but by Screamer's. That is why he can use wall and barrier and fence INTERCHANGABLY and still have the SAME MEANING. When I say that they are NOT the same and swapping one for the other CHANGES the meaning of the sentence. If swapping one for the other does NOT change the meaning, then they ARE equivalent. If swapping one for the other DOES change the meaning, then they are NOT equivalent. Instead of asking the person to clarify what they meant by being at THE FUCKING WALL, you intentionally are promoting a misunderstanding. Incorrect. I am clear on what a wall is. I am clear that a wall is NOT a fence (as you seem to have noted). I am clear on what a fence is. Instead of asking the person to clarify what they meant by being at THE FUCKING WALL, you intentionally are promoting a misunderstanding. So, which one of those words are you uncertain about? Since we've already concluded that wall, barrier and fence are not interchangable? Hmmmmmmm? So, I should ask for a clarification on what he meant by "wall" and if I don't, I'm "promoting a misunderstanding"? And you think that MY logic is "torturous at best"? Let's try that right now. When you said that wall, fence and barrier are NOT interchangable.... Could you clarify as to what you meant by "wall"? Also, "fence"? Also, "barrier"? Yes, I think you get the idea. If I was asking THOSE kinds of questions, then I WOULD be engaging in drivel. I will take it on faith that you, as an adult, understand what a wall is and what a fence is and what a barrier is. Until you prove otherwise.
Post #59,202 by ChrisR 10/24/02 5:02:47 PM Reply	Strawman I only put it down in a format that could EASILY be understood. The form you presented for repitition is chosen strictly as a pseudo proof. Yes, I realize you are using it as the basis to argue against - commonly referred to as a strawman. I reject that you have captured the semantics in your equations and, by extension, that you have captured the idea being conveyed by the person you are labelling as willfully misrepresenting the truth. The equations are out and out nonsense. Not only are wall and barrier equivalent terms, but wall, barrier and FENCE are equivalent terms. For the most part, no two words in the English language have identical meaning - even those we consider synonyms - no matter how close the approximation - different words will convey different meaning. However, words that we use are really bundles of abstract concepts. As I said, words are really Sets of concepts - being wrapped up with other words. In the current instance, wall and fence are not equivalent, but that does not mean that there are no contexts in which they may be effectively substituted for each other. You may think that the barrier between East and West is based described as a Fence, wishing to use the physical property of the barrier as the only term which fits. The problem with using fence to describe the seperation is that the term usually is used in the context of neighbors - fences make good neighbors. If you wanted to call it a fence that seperated Europe, then feel free to use that expression. The term Wall may or may not be appropriate. From the standpoint of literal and physical structure, it may be less accurate - at least as a description for the entire border between east and west. However, from the abstract concept of seperation that existed during the Cold War, Wall accurately gives the connotation of the absolute seperation that existed between East and West. Could you clarify as to what you meant by "wall"? Also, "fence"? Also, "barrier"? You can be quite daft when you want to be. Instead of engaging in a semantic discussion, why don't you ask him questions which would allow you to properly evaluate whether or not he served in Germany near the East-West divide. You don't have to engage in meaningless drivel about how he lied about it simply because the Wall was mentioned in an off cuff manner (in parenthesis). Or put it in another fashion. Maybe the son of a bitch is lying out his ass. But you have done a very poor job in establishing that fact. Perhaps instead of hinging your entire argument on the use a single word, you might actually ask something else to establish it in a more logical and reasoned manner. Right now you're just engaged in an unreasonable rant.
Post #59,219 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:08:32 PM Reply	Please take some time and take some courses. The form you presented for repitition is chosen strictly as a pseudo proof. No, once again, that is what Screamer said. He said that a wall is the same as a fence and both are the same as a barrier. I'll break it down for you. He said a wall is the same as a fence. He said, wall == fence Let's start with that. Where did I lose you?
Post #59,265 by Another Scott 10/24/02 9:12:19 PM Reply	Pardon me. Hi, He said a wall is the same as a fence. He said, wall == fence Let's start with that. Where did I lose you? I don't recall Screamer saying "a wall is the same as a fence" nor "wall == fence". I believe that those are your distillations of his posts in this thread. In other words, their your opinion of a tiny part of his post. And I believe the latter - "wall == fence" was your construction. Perhaps you can provide a cite to demonstrate your claim? It doesn't turn up in searches I've done. Otherwise, it certainly appears here that you're constructing strawmen. Arguing with your interpretation of what someone posts, after being corrected several times, is rather pointless, isn't it? You're not going to convince Screamer that he's wrong. Insulting a person usually just makes them upset and often more determined and it weakens your argument. So may I ask what is your point in arguing this way? It seems to me that it's counter-productive: it builds bad feelings, doesn't do anything to build understanding or transfer knowledge that can't be done in a much more civil way, and reduces the number of people here who are willing to have vigorous debates with you. So why? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #59,289 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:07:18 PM Reply	I value your opinion. But at the moment, I'm using this thread to step another person through the process. Perhaps we can discuss this later?
Post #59,268 by boxley 10/24/02 9:16:32 PM Reply	If I tell you that fence is a wall and I will shoot you if you attempt to cross is the correct definition of a barrier. If you cross without getting shot it means the barrier was inefficient. anything else I can help you with today? :-0 thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,426 by ChrisR 10/25/02 12:56:09 PM 10/25/02 1:15:06 PM Reply	That's not an argument... ...that's a contradiction. Simply stripping the decorative verbage and repeating the main points does not refine the argument, it only restates it. The contentions are specious, no matter how many times you wish to restate them. But the least you could do is embellish them with further explanation. Well, since the argument seems to be shedding little illumination, I might as well get diverted on a completely different tangent. I could be wrong, but I don't think further schooling in the art of argumentation would do me much good. I started competitive debate when I was in 8th grade and continued through 4 years of high school and a 4 year scholarship in college. The regimen for debate was to spend, on average, 60 hours a week involved in activities related to the extracurricular activity - a large number of those hours spent in the library doing research. If all those countless hours spent preparing for and delivering arguments hasn't prepared me to evaluate arguments, I don't think additional schooling will do the trick. As competitive debate goes, I was moderately successful. I really got into debate because of my natural predisposation to extreme shyness (that and I hated art class). Anyhow, I managed to snag a few trophies in my travels from coast to coast - even got them down from the attic a couple of months back (they had been up there for some 15 years), and found a place for them in my new work room (having just added on to our house). At this point in time, it's little more than Glory Days, but I did manage to impress my kids for all of 5 minutes. Anyhow, debate taught me several lessons I have carried on through life. Unfortunately, most of my fellows took the obvious one of "Crush the Weak". Most of my acquantances went on to become either lawyers or professors. I choose the more mundane world of programming, as I think that there is more beauty in building creations than there is in tearing down or protecting those that others do. One lesson debate did teach me is that if you hang out with smarter people than yourself, you will become smarter. Which brings me back to zIWETHEY. I hang out here because there are a large number of intelligent people in these parts - and I definitely include you in that list. But your style of argumentation can be a bit wearisome at times - amounting to a subtraction from the sum total of all knowledge rather than an addition. Granted, I consider it rare, but in the current instance about the Wall, you are displaying the very worst attributes in your style. On a larger scale, I do notice that the level of discourse has much deteriorated, even from it's miserable levels of just a few years back. Everyone seems more shrill and more certain in absolutes. Discussion is no longer an option, as posturing is quickly becoming the main course. This is not confined to zIWETHEY but it is rather obvious to me that divide between the sides is becoming deeper, and any in the middle are being swallowed whole. Discussions about subtleties, nuances and compromise are deeply discounted. Instead of being a debate or discussion, we entered into doing nothing more than exchanging contradictions. Anyhow, that's just a few ramblings which are not formulated very well, but they are put forward - not to be nitpicked apart. Doing so, would be the equivalent of trying to dissect a post from Ashton, and missing the ideas that are being expressed. [edit note: worrying about spelling tends to constrain my expressiveness :-)] Edited by ChrisR Oct. 25, 2002, 01:15:06 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,440 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:21:13 PM Reply	Again, do you see where he claimed that he could use the words wall and fence interchangably?
Post #59,443 by ChrisR 10/25/02 2:31:59 PM 10/25/02 2:37:36 PM Reply	Rinse, Wash, Repeat Z = { X, Y } X = { A, B, C, D } Y = { C, D, E, F } X intersect Y = { C, D } X union Y = { A, B, C, D, E, F } = Z Not a perfect translation in math of the idea, but it better achieves the idea of how word substitution may be employed. Edited by ChrisR Oct. 25, 2002, 02:37:36 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,445 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:37:20 PM Reply	I'm breaking this down for you. You've claimed that it was my logic that is faulty. I'm breaking this down for you. Again, do you see the point where he claimed he could use the words "wall" and "fence" interchangably? If you do, we can move on to the next point. If you don't, then that is the point where the misunderstanding occures. Or is it that you don't want to work on the misunderstanding anymore?
Post #59,456 by ChrisR 10/25/02 3:16:13 PM Reply	The subsets are interchangeable.... ...at the points at which they intersect (i.e. overlap). Or do I need to put this in plain English, Wall and Fence are bundles of abstract concepts. Many of the ideas they convey overlap. When the emphasis is on the overlapping concept, then, yes, they may be used interchangeably without a disruption in the connotation. If, however, you step outside of the overlapping subset and want to indicate meaning that falls outside of the region of intersection, then one term or the other becomes the proper term to use. In the current case, the emphasis is not on the physical attribute of the Wall or Fence. It is on the divisiveness that the barrier presents. Because the emphasis is on the "Act of Division", not the "Specific Property of the Division", Wall can be acceptably substituted for Fence to convey the true divisiveness of the barrier. As I implied previoously, fence has connotations of a more porous barrier - fences make good neighbors. Whereas wall has connotations of a non-porous border. So, if you want to convey the idea that the barrier was non-porous, you may choose to call it a wall. If you want to convey the idea that it was porous, you may call it a fence. Since you have chosen to ignore the concept of words as Sets, I can only conclude that you are stubbornly clinging to a viewpoint that is strictly boolean logic - it's either a fence or a wall, therefore its either a true statement or a false statement - either he is telling the truth or he is lying. Boolean logic works in limited circumstances, but it can easily be misapplied when extended beyond that domain. Of course, this whole fiasco could be solved by simply ascertaining some more facts - i.e. asking questions, cross-examination, etc... But since you want to base your rant on a single word, there's not much chance for illumination. You have made your conclusion and stuck with it, based on the tiniest shred of evidence. That evidence is not convincing and the conclusion that you draw is not grounded in logic - Ipso Facto - you are being illogical. If you do, we can move on to the next point. The next point in your dialectic was that because he called it a Wall, that this logically necessitated the specific conclusion that he is lying about being there. Faulty logic. Plain and simple. The logic being examined is: General Premise: he said there was a wall Specific Instance: It was a fence Specific Conclusion: he was not there Right now you are quibbling about whether the general premise has been established. I am also denying that the specific conclusion is necessitated, even if we assume that the general premise and specific instance is a given. There are a variery of rational explanations which can easily account for the fact your logic does not hold. Ironically, he said there was a FUCKING WALL, but I haven't seen you jump on the fact that the barrier at the border has never been known to copulate.
Post #59,488 by wharris2 10/25/02 5:09:17 PM Reply	Chris, you're arguing with an intractible ***hole.
Post #59,491 by Brandioch 10/25/02 5:17:08 PM Reply	You might want to ask yourself a question. The subsets are interchangeable.... ...at the points at which they intersect (i.e. overlap). Therefore, for the points at which they intersect... fence == barrier wall == barrier fence == wall ...at the points at which they intersect (i.e. overlap). Strange, but wasn't it you that told me that that was drivel? Now, you might want to ask yourself why you are unable to answer a simple question that has been presented to you three time. The question was: Do you see where he said that the words were interchangable? Rather than answering, you claim my logic is flawed, you go on about your past, and you provided me an instance where they would be interchangable. And, in that instance, the example I originally gave, (wall == barrier == fence) would be TRUE. But you claimed my logic was flawed. Why don't you take a time out and collect your thoughts and decide, once and for all, whether a wall is a fence or not. I've provided photographs, if you need them.
Post #59,212 by screamer 10/24/02 5:38:27 PM Reply	One last time... SLOWLY... My original premise, taken from Original post (bold for emphasis) [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55489\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=55489] says Am I the only one who watched the speech, understood that Bush sees this potential action as a continuation of the "hot" Iraqi war of '91 and views that their terms of surrender were not fulfilled. You want an analogy? We were in Japan and Germany making sure that they didn't rebuild their militaries for quite a while after WWII... Hey, don't we still have troops in Germany? As cynical as I am, I think that Bush understands that the Ameuropeacans will not tolerate oil shortages (based on their short term memories of the '70s and the number of behemouth gas guzzlers that litter the highways and autobahns) and that commerce is tied to domestic tranquility and security. Is it about the oil? Yep. Is that all it's about? Nope... You responded to that post to which my response was [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55523\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=55523] So you really think that the occupation armies in East Germany were there to prevent American expansion? Ad nauseum... The Russians were brutally attacked twice in one century by Germany. 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? That's when all the fun began (for you)... In no way do I imply that the wall is a physical wall. It is a barrier... In any case, inconsequential to this statement. It's clear what context the word wall appears... to a thinking person. I have to guess that you were still sore at me for taking you to school here? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41014\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=41014] Now please... ----oooo000oooo----- let's cut this out. Kay? 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 #59,222 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:18:42 PM Reply	Still there with the lies? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55579\|Huh?]You claimed there was a wall built in Germany. I clarified that for you. No. The "Wall" was in BERLIN. It did NOT divide Germany. It divided a city IN Germany (more specifically, a city in EAST Germany). There. The wall was in Berlin. It was a PHYSICAL wall. With bricks and mortar and so forth. Now, you reply to this with: 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 :-) [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55747\|nits and LMAO]Yes, that is your reply to my VERY SPECIFIC clarification. Yes, you used the word "wall". I clarified it for you. The wall was NOT all along the border. You then claimed that it was. In no uncertain terms. Oh, but they were uncertain terms because when you said "wall" after I clarified that there wasn't a wall there, it was in Berlin, you STILL said there was a wall... Until I posted photographs and THEN you started changing your claim. Liar.
Post #59,223 by screamer 10/24/02 6:21:59 PM Reply	-----oooOOOooo---- 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 #59,225 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:28:49 PM Reply	I expected that from you. Rather than support your claim that I defend tyrants..... Rather than support your claim that I first mentioned those other sites in Germany..... Rather than support your statement about anything...... No, you aren't a liar. You just lie.
Post #59,275 by Silverlock 10/24/02 10:04:49 PM Reply	This is beyond tiresome One trick pony needs to learn a new way. Please stop focusing on the minutae and try to address the point. You perhaps don't ralise how dissapointing it is to see you arguing these minor semantic points. Try to address the issue. If this post gives you the impression I have become pissed at you, trust your instincts. "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 #59,291 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:13:46 PM Reply	The issue has been addressed. Our bases in Germany were NOT put there so that the German's would not forget their mistake (as Screamer claims). They were put there to stop Soviet expansion. That is why we had things like Reforger and why we were willing to nuke Germany to slow down the Soviet armour until we could move more forces to Germany. Have I phrased that clearly enough?
Post #59,315 by Silverlock 10/24/02 11:49:29 PM 10/25/02 12:02:40 AM Reply	One time only My admittedly limited understanding of the events surrounding the end of WWII leads me to the belief that the occupation and division of Germany by the Allied powers was a neccessary and sufficient action to explain to the world that this type of war will no longer be tolerated. This was a just punishment. It had an end. The so-called block to Soviet expansion was a later concern. I am horrified that my country is now contemplating a war of conquest. (link last sentance to a new thread?) "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 Edited by Silverlock Oct. 25, 2002, 12:02:40 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,331 by Brandioch 10/25/02 1:07:12 AM Reply	Okay, this might seem a bit complicated. Stalin was on the allies' side. The "good" allies are invading from the west. The Soviets are "liberating countries" from the east. Countries like Poland and Lithuania. Keep these names in mind. After the war, Germany (and Berlin) was divided in occupied zones. US British French Soviet Meanwhile, we're still at war with Japan. Russia starts invading Korea, Manchuria and so forth. Keep these names in mind along with the ones earlier. So, eventually, WW II ends. On both fronts. The Soviets turn most of the countries they've "liberated" into satellite states. Recall those names? 1947, President Truman institutes the Truman Doctrine. The US will "...support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures..." The US institutes the Marshall Plan. The London Conferences are held. A West Germany government is to be built. The Soviets blockade Berlin. The Germans under Soviet rule see how much better the Germans in the west live under the Marshall Plan and start moving there. Lots of them move. The Soviets lock down the borders. And so forth. The IMPORTANT item to note is the Truman Doctrine (of which the Marshall Plan was the economic implementation). No, the division of Germany was NOT to punish the Germans. If you don't believe that, check out the literature on the London Conferences (and London Plan) and the Truman Doctrine.
Post #59,334 by Silverlock 10/25/02 1:14:54 AM Reply	Is this when the wall (excuse me .. barrier) was built? The Germans under Soviet rule see how much better the Germans in the west live under the Marshall Plan and start moving there. Lots of them move. The Soviets lock down the borders. Just wondering. "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 #59,346 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:01:12 AM Reply	Again, that's a bit complex. A quick google check to find the specific dates.... 1948 - 1949 - The Berlin Blockade. (no barrier, just the roads and railways are blocked) 1949 - Massive population shift from East Germany to West, continues until 1961 1952 - East Germany closes its border with West Germany. Special passes are needed to travel. (no barrier) The Berlin Wall went up on 16 August 1961. The border is fully barricaded in the 1960's. Oh, something I just found while checking the dates... President Truman's Foreign Service Advisor, George Kennan, developed the concept of "containment" for the Truman Doctrin.
Post #59,358 by Ashton 10/25/02 5:00:52 AM Reply	"The Iron Curtain" A Wall-less metaphor. [link\|http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/churchill-iron.html\| Churchill] invented that description in a speech in 1946. It stuck. I thought it interesting that Stalin was so predictable - reminded by a PBS reshowing of one of the excellent Battlefield series this PM. This one was about the Nazi invasion of USSR, undoubtedly rushed by Stalin's actions since the anti-aggression pact 2 years earlier. Stalin was busily gobbling up the Baltic States and, after a miserably inept attack on Finland - which needed almost all his Divisions to finally prevail in - he showed intentions re Romania, Yugoslavia etc. = [oil] again. Not only Hitler's future lebensraum but also his raw material supplies threatened. Point - that nearing end of WW-II (German surender in May), Stalin was busily reinforcing his occupation of all the buffer States between USSR and Europe. He clearly intended not to dis-occupy these locales. That this was counter to all agreements made at Yalta and before.. was no more a matter to Stalin than were Hitler's guarantees to.. that litany of countries mentioned in his Reichstag speech, (responding to a letter from Roosevelt seeking specific assurances). So while that 'Iron Curtain' was about this imaginary barrier between USSR and Europe - there is no question that the Berlin Wall and its extension across Germany via fences and mini-walls was seen by Stalin as the only means to keep E. Germans from fleeing West. But long prior to its erection from desperation: US/Allied presence in Germany morphed very quickly from (say) "assuring pacification" to simply, keeping Westward expansion of Stalin to a stalemate. Lots of nastier-Nazis were spared an appearance at Nuremburg, because of Murican John Dewey er pragmatism. Just like today and our newer despotic 'friends'. In fact, even prior to the official German surrender (Berlin itself captured by Soviets) - Americans were planning for an obvious confrontation with USSR - sooner or later. Scientists were being hustled to US (Von Braun et al) and "ex"-Nazis corraled for preparing Germany to resist, possibly even join the Allies against USSR. Many American generals saw this agenda quite before '44 - read Patton's remarks. Had Patton had his way, Allies + re-badged Wehrmacht troops would have rolled-back Stalin's incursions immediately after the Berlin surrender. (Ah well - 20/20 hindsight and all; the rest of the folks and esp. Truman weren't up to that much of a venture.) Pretty amazing what just TWO fucking-Crazed homo-saps can do eh? Even before Progress! transistors, suitcase nukes, rap. Imagine what we can do Next !? (You may not have to imagine) Ashton Harvey Wall-Martbanger
Post #59,482 by wharris2 10/25/02 4:49:12 PM Reply	Re: "The Iron Curtain" Don't tell any of that to Brandioch. He'll dissect the definition until it is sucked drier than a bone in a desert, then dissect it again.
Post #59,134 by wharris2 10/24/02 1:59:10 PM Reply	Re: non sequiter Better not mention the Iron Curtain. Which as we all know wasn't iron, and not a curtain anyway.
Post #59,078 by pwhysall 10/24/02 11:50:53 AM Reply	Give it a rest. This isn't debating, or discussing. This is you, wanking in public. Get over yourself. You can do better than this. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #59,104 by Brandioch 10/24/02 12:50:13 PM Reply	You don't understand. The entire "discussion" of whether we should go to war with Iraq is built upon such linguistic tricks as this. All of the rationalizations are "correct", given a sufficiently broad definition of each.
Post #59,106 by pwhysall 10/24/02 12:57:30 PM Reply	fapfapfapfap* Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #59,128 by Mike 10/24/02 1:42:25 PM Reply	Just don't get any on your tie. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,378 by admin 10/25/02 9:29:27 AM 10/25/02 9:32:21 AM Reply	Re: Care to link to that? [link\|http://www.ddr5.homestead.com/files/gm/gm.html\|http://www.ddr5.home.../files/gm/gm.html] M\ufffddlareuth is a very small town that found itself divided between conquering armies after WWII. The border between the American and Soviet section ran right through the town. For the first several years after the division passage was still possible. But as more and more of East Germany's best and brightest left for the west, barriers went up along the Inner-German Border. Starting with barbwire and wooden fences, they became more secure with the creation of a forbidden zone controlled by the East German Border Guards. From the Baltic coast to the Czech border, an area several kilometers wide was sectioned off. Anyone living within this zone was given a special pass and only those with such passes were allowed near the border. On the far western side of the zone ran the actual wall. It was about thirteen feet high and made out of concrete when it ran through populated areas. The majority of the wall ran through the countryside and was made out of a heavy steel mesh (almost steel grating) and topped by barbed wire. Watchtowers were positioned at strategic locations along the wall. A road ran the length of the wall for maintenance and security patrols. On the other side of the wall the land was cleared of trees and planted with mines. Automatic firing machine guns and automatic search lights provided additional deterrent. This swath of land was several hundred meters wide. On the eastern edge of the forbidden zone was another fence topped with barbwire. Emphasis mine, but read the whole thing. So this person also doesn't see the horrible lie inherent in referring so a sometimes fence, sometimes wall barrier as a wall. Can we please stop the inanity now? Or are you willing to write the author of this page with a tirade about calling it a wall as well? [edit: I should have linked this [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=59328\|here] instead. But then I would have seen that Brandioch is still on his Crusade Of Truth. Oh well, live goes on.] Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Oct. 25, 2002, 09:32:21 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #58,571 by dmarker2 10/22/02 7:32:52 PM Reply	Re: Out of touch with world in NY City ... A Fair counter offer would be me doing the same through East Timor with the words I am an Australian I am proud we rescued you from Indonesia I fully support John Howards East Timor Strategy You really don't know whats going on outside New York do you ? Have you ever been to another country (apart from Canada, Texas or Mehico) ? Anyway, I knowwhich one of us would be found by the roadside looking like a sieve. Cheers Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!