Post #92,659
3/28/03 10:09:29 PM
|
I'll read that as "I was wrong". :D
You decry anything positive that the popular news media has to say about the administration or the war, calling it propaganda, rumor and sensationalism.
Yet you cheerfully suck this bullcrap right down. So, nothing to say other than I'm wrong for linking to that. :D hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha
|
Post #92,665
3/28/03 10:17:44 PM
|
Re: I'll read that as "I was wrong". :D
No, I'm saying that it's sensationalist bullcrap like the special Fox did recently about the U.S. not landing on the moon.
You latch on to whatever journalistic silly-season fluffery that fits your agenda, but sneer at the press when they report anything contrary.
|
Post #92,669
3/28/03 10:23:39 PM
|
I'll read that as "I was wrong and I'm sorry".
You claimed our government would NOT do such a thing.
Links are provided indicating that not only would our PREVIOUS government do something like that, but our CURRENT regime had planned similar activities.
And your counter to this is.....
"I'm saying that it's sensationalist bullcrap like the special Fox did recently about the U.S. not landing on the moon."
:D
|
Post #92,683
3/28/03 10:39:16 PM
|
Re: I'll read that as "I was wrong and I'm sorry".
Uhh...they are links, and they are from the Internet. I must be wrong.
What kind of proof is "indicating"??!!?
I can indicate that you were personally responsible for coordinating the 9/11 attacks, but that does not make it any less false.
|
Post #92,695
3/28/03 10:53:25 PM
|
That was a reference to a book.
The link was to a web page.
The book was published and ABC news did a story on it.
Another, more recent, story has been the lies about Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear material from Niger.
|
Post #92,697
3/28/03 10:58:53 PM
|
Re: That was a reference to a book.
All the UFO theorists have books too.
If I wrote a book, would you believe it?
|
Post #92,704
3/28/03 11:10:56 PM
|
Get ABC news to post it, with references.
If you can.
But I'm willing to bet that you cannot.
|
Post #92,706
3/28/03 11:15:20 PM
|
Re: Get ABC news to post it, with references.
So ABC news is suddenly a circumspect and trustworthy publication?
|
Post #92,711
3/28/03 11:22:30 PM
|
They do rate higher in veracity than you do.
So ABC news is suddenly a circumspect and trustworthy publication? "circumspect"? They rate higher than you. "trustworthy"? Again, they rate higher than you. You left off the bit about "references" in the book and on ABC news. ABC news, by itself, is not to be considered "trustworthy". But they do provide references for their stories (or point out that such was "unconfirmed").
|
Post #92,718
3/28/03 11:41:27 PM
3/28/03 11:56:21 PM
|
Re: They do rate higher in veracity than you do.
I'm not asking you to compare ABC News to me.
I'm asking you to compare your opinion of them when they publish something that follows your ideology, to when they publish something that doesn't.
Out of one side of your mouth you accuse them of being corrupt and in the control of the government.
Out of the other side you hold up their journalistic virtues and attention to references and fact.
Which is it?
Edited by cybermace5
March 28, 2003, 11:56:21 PM EST
|
Post #92,722
3/28/03 11:57:39 PM
|
That's what I gave you.
I'm not asking you to compare ABC News to me. I don't trust your "facts". I place more trust in the "facts" that ABC news supplies, provided they are also provided with references. The bit about the references is the bit you missed. Out of one side of your mouth you accuse them of being corrupt and in control of the government. I never said that our government was controlled by ABC news. I have said that our government feeds propaganda to the US media. Which is why I pointed out the "references". Again, the bit you keep missing. If ABC news says something and quotes our current regime as the source, I do not have any faith in what is said. If ABC news says something and provides the references, I can check those references myself to verify the story. Out of the other side you hold up their journalistic virtues and attention to references and fact. No. Because they sometimes "reference" our current regime as the source of the story. Let me make this simple for you. Are there references for the story? If "no" then disregard story. If "yes" continue. Are those references from our current regime? If "yes" then wait for confirmation from non-regime sources. If "no" continue. Are the references appear factual? If "no", then disregard story. If "yes", then accept story. Now, I know you're going to try to attack what I consider "factual". An example. ABC news runs a story about how Iraq is trying to purchase nuclear material from Niger. The source is our current regime's secret documentation. Disregard the story. The source is our regime and the references are unverifiable. The story continues. The documentation has been provided to a non-regime body for verification. Move from disregarding the story to waiting for verification. The story continues. The non-regime body says the documents are badly done fakes that would never convince anyone who did any basic research. References are given stating that the amount of material could not be smuggled out and that the signatures were from people no longer in those jobs. The story has now been checked and proven false. Note the verification of facts.
|
Post #92,724
3/29/03 12:02:15 AM
|
Re: That's what I gave you.
Excellent system you got there, try it with some of the other stories you seem to relish.
|
Post #92,726
3/29/03 12:02:56 AM
|
Nice, you can't refute it so you'll dismiss it. :D
hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha
|
Post #92,727
3/29/03 12:06:45 AM
|
Re: Nice, you can't refute it so you'll dismiss it. :D
How can I refute your system of fact checking? Am I supposed to say that you do not, in fact, ever follow that particular plan of action? I merely suggested that you should apply it to some of the articles, for example, blaming the CIA for spreading anthrax.
|
Post #92,812
3/29/03 12:12:44 PM
|
And I said that where?
I merely suggested that you should apply it to some of the articles, for example, blaming the CIA for spreading anthrax. And I made that claim where? Okay, so you're in a full retreat into fantasy. Understandable.
|
Post #92,836
3/29/03 1:46:07 PM
3/29/03 1:47:31 PM
|
Thanks for the free one.
Never thought you would lose your grip so fast. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=92655|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=92655]
(I would like to add...OUCH! THAT'S GONNA STING!)
Edited by cybermace5
March 29, 2003, 01:47:31 PM EST
|
Post #92,855
3/29/03 3:05:03 PM
|
And I deliver ANOTHER SMACKDOWN!!!
You claim that I had stated that the CIA was behind the anthrax mailings.
To "support" your claim, you link to a post of mine that has a link to a post from dmarker that has a link to an article about a book reviewed by ABC news about how our government discussed plans to fake terrorist attacks on the US.
hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahaaaaa
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
hahahahahahahahahahahhaha
|
Post #92,865
3/29/03 3:29:55 PM
3/29/03 3:31:15 PM
|
Directly upon yourself.
I stated:
Your examples are, at best, rooted in the words of one or a few people. Their actions can hardly be attributed to "the government" as a whole.
You replied: Marlowe REALLY needs to brief you better. :D
You know, the ones that point out how our government has ALREADY done so.
What about this link [*]?
:D
Seems that you are rather naive when it comes to what our government will do to advance its cause. Now, let's see. The link you referred to was a post by dmarker. It contained links to several stories. Four out of the five links discussed the CIA and allegations of anthrax involvement. dmarker's commentary also inextricably tangled the non-anthrax article with the others. Your verbiage was "the ones that point out how our government has ALREADY done so" referring to examples counter to what I was discussing. You obviously endorsed more than one example listed in that post. There is no possible way you could have endorsed more than one, and miss the CIA and anthrax articles. What are you trying to say here? That you don't believe the CIA had anything to do with anthrax? That dmarker is a total loon for suggesting it? Or that you made a mistake in linking to dmarker's post, having not practiced the journalistic critique methods you purport to use on every story? Why did you link to dmarker's post, if you do not subscribe to the notion that the CIA distributed anthrax?
Edited by cybermace5
March 29, 2003, 03:31:15 PM EST
|
Post #92,901
3/29/03 7:20:18 PM
|
Interesting triage, given the context.
A ref'd link suggesting the mindset of the early '60s *US Advisors* [link|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html| at ABC News] amidst speculations in another handful of links -- about a topic which has been in no way resolved: Means, you may ignore the earlier analogous need for war-fever, and the methods then entertained - and concentrate upon the obvious mere speculations on the Odd Case of the Instant Anthrax. Safe that. It's a safer bet that, whoever was responsible and with whichever accomplices - will not be selling the story to newsfotainment. Well, not for awhile. (After all, the above book seems to have come out in 2001. Oh well.) Back then to the Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.
Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof \ufffd that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]." Now I haven't read Bamford's book, yet. And I'd suppose that he lacks videotape of the parties alleged to this little bit of Muricanized-NKVD fantasizing. So, without [links] OR vieotape, well - let's just ignore the thought, shall we? It may be a credit to the Kennedy Admin that they disdained such madness - but to me the factoid that Such Measures were even deemed worthy of suggestion without demotion is quite enough to gauge the range of mindsets as much within Our government as in any other we love to diss. But let's flay the wonderfully evanescent Anthrax Plan?/Scam?/Red Herring? - whatever. The other is just soooo uncomfortable to pay any attention to, In These War Times When We Must Shut Up And Support Our ___ Carry-on; digital analysis is so fascinating, Ashton Undiluted Goodness LLC Banana Republic - it's not just for them any more..
|
Post #92,907
3/29/03 7:43:32 PM
|
Re: Interesting triage, given the context.
Nothing you said made any sense. Focus!
I was saying that it was ridiculous to say that the military could manufacture banned weapons and facilities in Iraq, without anyone finding out.
Brandioch then linked to a post discussing, in majority, CIA and anthrax, claiming it as an example of government manufacturing of evidence. Later on he said he'd made no such claim. I refuted that quite crushingly.
Now, you want to focus on the 1960's article and ignore the CIA/anthrax, even though that was a major part of dmarker's post? Do you, too, think the CIA/anthrax rumor is false and ridiculous?
|
Post #92,912
3/29/03 8:00:54 PM
|
Re: Interesting triage, given the context.
I refuted that quite crushingly
Like a cubic meter of aerogel dropped from ten feet.
--delivered with, as you would have it, "a suffocating, revolting style of self-importance, arrogance, disdain, and pride"...?
Well, importance is something that, like popularity, can only be assigned from the outside. The most important people in the corners of iwethey that I routinely visit (if importance be defined as those who either stir the pot--or piss in the soup, in one case--most vigorously, or whose contributions are the most thought-provoking) would be ashton, marlowe, boxley, dmarker, inthane_chan, simon_jester and several others far more significant, for good or for ill, than I am (we two are just a couple of dueling mosquitoes by comparison). As to "arrogance, disdain and pride" --what can I say? You bring out the best in me.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #92,918
3/29/03 8:26:38 PM
|
Let us all hope no one brings out the worst.
|
Post #92,920
3/29/03 8:44:05 PM
|
be afraid. be very afraid.
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #92,915
3/29/03 8:15:37 PM
|
Sorry, Bub
Unwilling to break down the world into handy funnel-sort chunks for processing by the determinedly pig-headed. Brandioch is often willing to dismember such theses, byte by byte. Hell, I do crosswords sometimes, too..
If you find my prose unintelligible, or just indigestible - feel free to ignore. That's the only EULA.
Ashton
PS - as to your actual query:
Proof exists only in mathematics, and then only within the rarefied environment / class of a series of stated axia. In ANY other area of human involvement: logic alone, is never enough. Except for slogans, of course. They don't teach debate anymore, do they?
|
Post #92,916
3/29/03 8:18:34 PM
|
Prose....HA!
I never saw such beauty, not even in the mumblings of the terminally insane.
|
Post #92,917
3/29/03 8:23:53 PM
|
Re: Prose....HA!
I never saw such beauty, not even in the mumblings of the terminally insane.
Spend a lot of time with that set, do you?
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #92,938
3/29/03 10:19:58 PM
|
Re: Prose....HA!
Having spent some number of years at the top undergraduate engineering school in the country, well, yes.
There were some there who focused on one thing and did it very, very well. However, they neglected everything else. Sometimes this was not of their own choice.
An example is one individual who (poorly) sewed his own costume with a long green pointed hat and misshapen nightgown, and wore it exclusively. That and singing unintelligible songs outside at night, while dragging himself along the ground with his arms alone, his legs tucked up inside his clothes (self-termed "weebling").
If we were a little far off the beaten path, he was in another galaxy. But despite all of that, he wrote programs and performed mathematics on pure intuition. His sophomore year was spent completing beyond-graduate-level studies and delving into unexplored mathematical territory.
He also has 7,545 comments on Slashdot to date.
|
Post #92,962
3/29/03 11:38:27 PM
|
What's with Marlowe and friends?
Having spent some number of years at the top undergraduate engineering school in the country, well, yes. Why do they all have such a hard time openly stating their past? Well, okay, with Marlowe I know why.
|
Post #93,006
3/30/03 2:43:13 AM
|
Hmmm - the W.. or E.. Coast menagerie?
If West,
1) What and where is Millikan's Pot?
2) What's a Brake Drum riot?
As to your weebling friend - is an idiot savant a handicapped person or a well-rounded Liberally-educated University Graduate - or both?
Ain't IQ a Riot? (in a CPA society, anyway) .. but can it sell things (?)
Ashton
Now if we attended the same funny farm..
|
Post #93,008
3/30/03 2:49:33 AM
|
Neither.
|
Post #92,959
3/29/03 11:35:17 PM
|
Oooh, ANOTHER SMACKDOWN!
It's called "context".
Read that thread where I specifically reference the BOOK that was reviewed by ABC news.
:D
And I deliver the patented DOUBLE SMACKDOWN!
With context sensitive help screens provided.
ahhahahahahahahhahaa
|
Post #92,987
3/30/03 1:05:58 AM
|
Re: Oooh, ANOTHER SMACKDOWN!
Umm, you just aren't getting it, are you.
|
Post #92,994
3/30/03 1:58:15 AM
|
And yet ANOTHER SMACKDOWN!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha Umm, you just aren't getting it, are you. I'm not? I reference a link about a book reviewed by ABC news. You don't understand that? hahahahahahahahahahahha
|
Post #93,007
3/30/03 2:47:34 AM
|
Re: And yet ANOTHER SMACKDOWN!
And right above that you state that "links are provided" indicating the U.S. did such things in the past and present.
You specifically said "links are."
Emphasis on plural.
You were referring to the CIA/anthrax stories and you know it.
You cannot worm your way out of this, and everyone here knows it.
|
Post #93,014
3/30/03 3:04:30 AM
|
It is the feared QUADRUPAL SMACKDOWN!
You specifically said "links are." [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=92655|What about this link [*]?] You say it was PLURAL. Looks SINGULAR to me. !!!SMACKDOWN!!!
|
Post #93,017
3/30/03 3:08:36 AM
|
It's spelled QUADRUPLE, and IDIOT!!
That link is not a link to a book! It is a link to a post where dmarker talks about CIA/anthrax involvement (4 out of 5 links) and past allegations of something that never happened, thus never can be proved.
It is YOU suffering the smackdown, and all you can hope is that no one is actually reading the message bodies.
|
Post #93,023
3/30/03 3:23:01 AM
|
It's spelled QUINTUPLE!
YOU said I posted "links" as in plural.
I linked to my post and it proved that it was SINGULAR!
And AGAIN you are WRONG!
hahahahahahahahhahahaha
Another !!!SMACKDOWN!!!
|
Post #93,070
3/30/03 1:33:58 PM
|
Re: It's spelled QUINTUPLE!
Uh, you posted a link to some links, and said "links have been provided."
It's pretty pathetic that you're so deluded, you think you ever had a snowball's chance in hell on that one.
|
Post #92,876
3/29/03 4:43:00 PM
|
Own Goal!
"Bill gates cannot guarantee Windows, so how are you going to guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton to the Emperor of the Scarrans on [link|http://www.farscape.com|FarScape]
|
Post #92,878
3/29/03 4:47:20 PM
|
You shouldn't hit yourself so hard.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #92,732
3/29/03 12:19:51 AM
|
This is the part where..
....you say that no story can be used that quotes [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=69981|"sources"] without providing the names of those sources...yet, of course, you've done this on multiple occassions...as long as it supports >your< view.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #92,670
3/28/03 10:23:48 PM
|
I have no problem with calling it bullcrap
But please quote (paste here) the part that is bullcrap and offer some justification as to why it is bullcrap.
Generalizations without reference or rebuttal are the real bullcrap here.
Thanks
Doug
Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003
Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
|
Post #92,677
3/28/03 10:36:13 PM
|
Re: I have no problem with calling it bullcrap
Generalizations without reference or rebuttal are the real bullcrap here. And that is precisely what those articles are. If you seriously believe the CIA was responsible for domestic terrorism, you are more gullible than I can possibly imagine. Since you are defending those articles, I ask you to provide additional proof of the statements within. Add another layer to the tinfoil hat.
|
Post #92,763
3/29/03 7:09:20 AM
|
Once again - quote the part that is bullcrap !!!!
or are you unable to ?
By quoting a segment, we can at least determine its relevance, then agree or disagree on the substance behind it (is it or isn't it 'bullcrap'.
If *you* say it is bullcrap, at least have the additional integrity to highlight what it is that is the bullcrap. Not doing so suggests you really don't know. It may well be that some aspects of the articles can be fairly called that but let us at least know what & then deal with it.
By the way, did you ever belong to a debating team at school ? - do you have any rules by which we can debate, can you suggest any that are commonly acceptable so that we can at least seperate generalist verbiage from reasoned argument that either of us may put forward ???
Cheers
Doug Marker
Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003
Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
|
