randy..of course i am serious with many of my posts...you said i
quote "push onto others"...
that is how you view it...i see it as i discuss, i talk, i share my vast wisdom
i will follow my own logic also...i don't want to go to iraq, i don't want our soldiers to go to iraq...i am very consistent...
you want our boys to go to iraq, you do not want to go to iraq...you are inconsistent
quote: You are of "like" position, so why are they not your "friends" on the topic?
friends imply i know them...either in person or even on-line...i have friends here i have never, and probably never will, meet...
strangers in hollywood are not my friends, even if we "think" alike (which we wouldn't do on all issues anyway)
so if saddam thinks--"i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" and randycat thinks "i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" then saddam and randycat are friends????
i think of g'rat as kinda a friend (though we don't IM each other or anything), surely not an enemy...definately a countryman...murbot and brad are friends...powerdoc i think of like g'rat...nice people to chat with
i don't understand your analogy of hollywood being my friends but rummy not being yours...sorry lost me there...not sure what you meant by
[quote] By your logic they are. <hr></blockquote>
so you are deciding my logic for me??? only my wife has that ability...
and more about "my logic" at the end...didn't mean to touch a nerve there randy...
you are right, i don't know if you have flat feet, are 86, are gay and won't be taken in the military...
i never called anyone a coward, just wondering why so many are for military action who aren't in the military...
as for human shields....never once said i supported them either...that is "your" logic
in conclusion...i don't want to be in iraq...i don't want you in iraq...i don't want our soldiers in iraq...so i think i have stayed a steady course there...if the UN wants our boys in Iraq, then i will accept that....g
<strong>randy..of course i am serious with many of my posts...you said i "push onto others"...that is how you view it...i see it as discuss, talk....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep applying the "if you want war, you yourself should go" logic. If they don't, logically you must be implying some derrogative judgement on them. Labeling people as cowards, or in your less inflamatory wording "inconsistent", is hardly conducive to "discussion". I don't appreciate your backhanded inferences any more than your outright insults.
<strong> [quote]i will follow my own logic also...i don't want to go to iraq, i don't want our soldiers to go to iraq...i am very consistent...you want our boys to go to iraq, you do not want to go to iraq...you are inconsistent</strong><hr></blockquote>
You "love" a protest, too. So why not do the "ultimate protest"? Go be a human shield. Too much "cost" for you? You rather enjoy walking in protest while in the safe confines of the US than going somewhere where something of great value is being put on the line? You are being inconsistent by your own logic.
<strong> [quote]friends imply i know them...either in person or even on-line...i have friends here i have never, and probably never will, meet...strangers in hollywood are not my friends, even if we "think" alike (which we wouldn't do on all issues anyway)
so if saddam thinks--"i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" and randycat thinks "i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" then saddam and randycat are friends????</strong><hr></blockquote>
...but if you catch 2 people shaking hands in a picture (a photo op, no doubt), they are incontrovertibly "friends" in every letter of the word? Where do you draw the line? I'd think if you adamantly agree with another group of people on something, you are "friends" on the topic. When they get busted in a some perverted sex scandal, then you logically cut any supposed ties of "friendship" with them. Seems like the Hollywood thing to do, no? So the Hollywood definition of "friends" would seem to be quite applicable to you here.
<strong> [quote]in conclusion...i don't want to be in iraq...i don't want you in iraq...i don't want our soldiers in iraq...so i think i have stayed a steady course there...if the UN wants our boys in Iraq, then i will accept that....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
***** I guess that presents a BIG problem then. Unless the UN is completely manned with veterans and active military personnel, they have no business whatsoever making decisions about war vs. no war by your logic.*****
not only does the "coward" thing strike a very deep and tender nerve, but then you complain about it over and over while trying to call me what?? a coward....
i don't agree with the human shields...so i don't plan on being one...i would fight to the death in a second to protect my family or my homeland...fighting on forgein soil and killing people in their homes and in their birth country would take something grand (think WWII grand) for me
you agree with the military action, but don't plan on going...fine with me...as i said, i don't want you to go...all you had to do was say, i am 32 years old and have a kid and need to be a father...that is good enough for me...
back when rummy was shaking hands he knew saddam was using chemical weapons against the iranian people...it's not like suddenly saddam became bad, he was bad then, but we needed him because we hated iran more....
Can we conclude that US did buisness with Saddam, The french are cowards, the germans have learned nothing from WWI and II, the coming members of EU have not been out of the claws of Communism long enough to have a say, the israeli prime minister is a war criminal, the english have no backing from his population, and the italian is corrupt.
That leaves more or less the scandinavian countries. Hey New and Harald. We are the new world leaders
<strong>not only does the "coward" thing strike a very deep and tender nerve, but then you complain about it over and over while trying to call me what?? a coward....
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
...by your logic. Yeah, it really sucks when someone judges you over a phone line to be a coward. That really pisses you off, right? You would wish others did not call you that or even infer it, right? Well stop doing it then, and logically others won't do it back at you. [cue epiphany music chord]
<strong>so i know other countries have dirty hands in iraq, but i mostly only talk about my country (and rag on canada to bug murbot...plus i think of canada as our brother country...our slightly dim and drunk brother country ....one day we should definetly take down that border between the US and Canada....maybe leave it up for the french part of canada though )...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're STILL mad about that whole "burning down the white house" thing? Get over it dude.
call me what you want...makes no difference to me...over cable lines or to my face....i'm an adult and can handle it....and i believe you said "coward" first....many times...i never called you a coward for not serving our country, i just asked why you hadn't....i fully support anyones choice to either join the military (like many in my family have) or not to (like many in my family have)...i never did because there were no wars when i was of age (1979 to 1989ish as a range) and also because both my mother and my wife would have killed me if i had...g
Yeah, I said it first! ...but you, of course, have no recollection or knowledge of anyone, possibly by intention or accident, imply or infer it before that. Ooookay, I see how you think now. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> Stuff like "I didn't inhale" or "What do you mean by 'intercourse'?" fly with you just fine, I would guess. ...The US just up and decided to invade Afganistan and Kuwait one day... This opens a cornucopia of word interpretations and selective contexts now...
Talk is cheap. Actions make a difference. You may be apologizing to me today, but going on with the "pro-war ==> you must enlist lest your manhood be in question" logic tomorrow. PROVE ME WRONG, why don't you?... We shall see...
<strong>Can we conclude that US did buisness with Saddam, The french are cowards, the germans have learned nothing from WWI and II, the coming members of EU have not been out of the claws of Communism long enough to have a say, the israeli prime minister is a war criminal, the english have no backing from his population, and the italian is corrupt.
That leaves more or less the scandinavian countries. Hey New and Harald. We are the new world leaders </strong><hr></blockquote>
As I had expected- all talk, Mr. Gelding? So after all this, you are going to continue using this inflammatory statement whenever the opportunity arises. How "Saddam" of you (and I do mean that in the most complementary manner, you realize).
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>the statement isn't that since you are pro-war you are a coward for not enlisting (that is your logic), the question is if you are pro-war why haven't you enlisted...very different things...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So says you, but "a meaning" has been fleshed out here, and it isn't exactly flattering. You are certainly welcome to suggest that you have a different meaning when you ask this question. That should be a kick with what you come up with. Me? I'll just ask why you are not a human shield yet, whenever you ask your enlistment question. Sound fair?
hell it would be great if we could meet and get in a fist fight...i would be all for that...just about any friday night when i have a couple of beers will do...i am irish and we love to fight when drinking...i come to so cal every couple of years...it was where i was born and raised...email me and we will try to get together...my wife and daughters want to go out this summer, so we can make a date....other than that, why don't we stick to PMing each other if we have a complaint...i promise not to post to your threads and you can do whatever you please...ask me all you want about human shields...it strikes absolutely no nerve on me...call me a coward...again, i could care less...
move on folks, nothing to see here...just a 32 year old and a 41 year old fighting on the internet....sigh
If none of this "bothers" you, where in the world did "fist fight" come into this??? Has this encounter really come to the "last resort", or does that not apply when it comes to interpersonal matters? Were you not proclaiming that we were just "talking"? Have you switched strategies from "talking things out" to intimidation via fist fight threats? (I noticed you edited your earlier message, despite my later reply which managed to catch some of it. Hmmm...)
You said you didn't care what I did with regard to post topics we both may be participating in, so you should be quite amicable with the counter-response I suggested I would be using toward your enlistment query. What is the problem here? What "complaints" are you speaking of that require PM? You seem to have bolted off in a rogue direction here, honestly.
did you accept?? no, you questioned my word immediately...telling me my words are cheap...nice but i don't have to accept that...
you decided to come to my thread...you decided to add nothing about rumsfled nor his past with saddam...
you decided to rant about liberals in hollywood...
if you want to rant about that, fine, start your own freakin thread....
you want to ask why i am not a human shield?? i will answer that gladly...i don't believe in it...i do not think it will save lives, it only puts more lives in danger...senselessly dying, or killing, is wrong...
so can you answer my question? hell, don't answer, i don't care....i have absolutely no questions for you...
i'm irish with only brothers...we settled things by fighting...no big thing to me...we still loved each other after the nose bleeds and black eyes...since you are going on and on about me calling you a coward i figured it was a good way to settle this...if not, that is fine too...you were the one who brings up coward and brings up that i am doing this over phone lines...i am willing to talk face to face...the thing is it is my thread (was as i assume g'rat will be closing this soon), yet you keep coming back trying to start a flame war and staying no where near on topic...that is ok i guess, flame wars over the phone lines, but i don't flame war on the net...i prefer face to face for that talk
again, maybe i am just old fashioned, but if someone tries to end a fight and even goes to the point of saying sorry, you don't jump right back down their throat...it won't sit well with people...you may call it a "rogue direction", but if someone questions my word about trying to end a hostile discussion, and that person is consuming a thread i started, a thread that he could have avoided just by passing it by, then i just assume that person has hostile intent...that is fine with me...i can be hostile too, i just prefer it in person....funny that way....
so once again....i will never ask you any questions....i will never post to any thread you start...i touched a nerve with you and i tried to say sorry, but i will never do that again...
[quote] If none of this "bothers" you, where in the world did "fist fight" come into this??? Has this encounter really come to the "last resort", or does that not apply when it comes to interpersonal matters? <hr></blockquote>
nothing you post about saddam nor bush nor rumsfeld nor human shield nor even cowardice bothers me...throwing an apology back in my face does...
I was unaware that accepting your apology was mandatory (kind of like a Godfather kind of apology?). Are you seriously demanding I accept your apology or you'll endeavor to physically beat me down with your fists??? I didn't even ask you for one. Nor did I jump down your throat. All I said was that your forthcoming actions will determine your sincerity. Only a short moment later, it became clear that you had no intention of desisting from your comment that led to the issue where you ended up offering an apology. So forgive me for not being impressed if you sock me in the eye one day, and you apologize, but then you feel just the same as you did before about socking me in the eye the next day if the opportunity arises. Your tone seems to suggest you now desire a confrontation just because I don't sheepishly take your apology. Quite possibly it is a "menacing" tone that would fall under violation of AI TOS?
You want to get back on topic? Do it. I'm not stopping you. Why don't you answer the question in the last part of my last big post? ...Or maybe we should just go back to admiring your Rumsfield picture to be on-topic? Clearly, the only one here that has gotten into a knot is you. I'm cool. Maybe you should take a breath and be cool too?
Ironically, your doctoring of posts above seems to have left you no evidence that you even offered an apology, thus how could I have thrown an apology back in your face that was never offered? So all we have here is your statement that you would like to come to my hometown and beat me up because I enraged you over an apology that seemingly does not exist anymore.
no knots here, guess you just like talking to me...
as for the question you want answered...hope this is the right one...
[quote] ***** I guess that presents a BIG problem then. Unless the UN is completely manned with veterans and active military personnel, they have no business whatsoever making decisions about war vs. no war by your logic.***** <hr></blockquote>
i think the people sending soldiers to war, the people sending boys off to kill and die, should be either veterans, active military or people willing to also go to war along side those soldiers....
that could include just about everyone...and to bring it back on topic...it would include rumsfeld since he is a trained navy pilot....
Comments
quote "push onto others"...
that is how you view it...i see it as i discuss, i talk, i share my vast wisdom
i will follow my own logic also...i don't want to go to iraq, i don't want our soldiers to go to iraq...i am very consistent...
you want our boys to go to iraq, you do not want to go to iraq...you are inconsistent
quote: You are of "like" position, so why are they not your "friends" on the topic?
friends imply i know them...either in person or even on-line...i have friends here i have never, and probably never will, meet...
strangers in hollywood are not my friends, even if we "think" alike (which we wouldn't do on all issues anyway)
so if saddam thinks--"i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" and randycat thinks "i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" then saddam and randycat are friends????
i think of g'rat as kinda a friend (though we don't IM each other or anything), surely not an enemy...definately a countryman...murbot and brad are friends...powerdoc i think of like g'rat...nice people to chat with
i don't understand your analogy of hollywood being my friends but rummy not being yours...sorry lost me there...not sure what you meant by
[quote] By your logic they are. <hr></blockquote>
so you are deciding my logic for me??? only my wife has that ability...
and more about "my logic" at the end...didn't mean to touch a nerve there randy...
you are right, i don't know if you have flat feet, are 86, are gay and won't be taken in the military...
i never called anyone a coward, just wondering why so many are for military action who aren't in the military...
as for human shields....never once said i supported them either...that is "your" logic
in conclusion...i don't want to be in iraq...i don't want you in iraq...i don't want our soldiers in iraq...so i think i have stayed a steady course there...if the UN wants our boys in Iraq, then i will accept that....g
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>randy..of course i am serious with many of my posts...you said i "push onto others"...that is how you view it...i see it as discuss, talk....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep applying the "if you want war, you yourself should go" logic. If they don't, logically you must be implying some derrogative judgement on them. Labeling people as cowards, or in your less inflamatory wording "inconsistent", is hardly conducive to "discussion". I don't appreciate your backhanded inferences any more than your outright insults.
<strong> [quote]i will follow my own logic also...i don't want to go to iraq, i don't want our soldiers to go to iraq...i am very consistent...you want our boys to go to iraq, you do not want to go to iraq...you are inconsistent</strong><hr></blockquote>
You "love" a protest, too. So why not do the "ultimate protest"? Go be a human shield. Too much "cost" for you? You rather enjoy walking in protest while in the safe confines of the US than going somewhere where something of great value is being put on the line? You are being inconsistent by your own logic.
<strong> [quote]friends imply i know them...either in person or even on-line...i have friends here i have never, and probably never will, meet...strangers in hollywood are not my friends, even if we "think" alike (which we wouldn't do on all issues anyway)
so if saddam thinks--"i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" and randycat thinks "i hate that NY baseball team, the yankees" then saddam and randycat are friends????</strong><hr></blockquote>
...but if you catch 2 people shaking hands in a picture (a photo op, no doubt), they are incontrovertibly "friends" in every letter of the word? Where do you draw the line? I'd think if you adamantly agree with another group of people on something, you are "friends" on the topic. When they get busted in a some perverted sex scandal, then you logically cut any supposed ties of "friendship" with them. Seems like the Hollywood thing to do, no? So the Hollywood definition of "friends" would seem to be quite applicable to you here.
<strong> [quote]in conclusion...i don't want to be in iraq...i don't want you in iraq...i don't want our soldiers in iraq...so i think i have stayed a steady course there...if the UN wants our boys in Iraq, then i will accept that....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
***** I guess that presents a BIG problem then. Unless the UN is completely manned with veterans and active military personnel, they have no business whatsoever making decisions about war vs. no war by your logic.*****
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Pictures say a thousand words... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You lost me completly with that picture. Rumsfeldt walking near Pentagon after the terrorist attack has what to do with Iraq?
not only does the "coward" thing strike a very deep and tender nerve, but then you complain about it over and over while trying to call me what?? a coward....
i don't agree with the human shields...so i don't plan on being one...i would fight to the death in a second to protect my family or my homeland...fighting on forgein soil and killing people in their homes and in their birth country would take something grand (think WWII grand) for me
you agree with the military action, but don't plan on going...fine with me...as i said, i don't want you to go...all you had to do was say, i am 32 years old and have a kid and need to be a father...that is good enough for me...
back when rummy was shaking hands he knew saddam was using chemical weapons against the iranian people...it's not like suddenly saddam became bad, he was bad then, but we needed him because we hated iran more....
g
That leaves more or less the scandinavian countries. Hey New and Harald. We are the new world leaders
<strong>not only does the "coward" thing strike a very deep and tender nerve, but then you complain about it over and over while trying to call me what?? a coward....
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
...by your logic. Yeah, it really sucks when someone judges you over a phone line to be a coward. That really pisses you off, right?
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>so i know other countries have dirty hands in iraq, but i mostly only talk about my country (and rag on canada to bug murbot...plus i think of canada as our brother country...our slightly dim and drunk brother country ....one day we should definetly take down that border between the US and Canada....maybe leave it up for the french part of canada though )...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're STILL mad about that whole "burning down the white house" thing? Get over it dude.
g
<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~war1812/batwash.html" target="_blank">damn you canadians....send us beer and we forgive you</a>
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>Can we conclude that US did buisness with Saddam, The french are cowards, the germans have learned nothing from WWI and II, the coming members of EU have not been out of the claws of Communism long enough to have a say, the israeli prime minister is a war criminal, the english have no backing from his population, and the italian is corrupt.
That leaves more or less the scandinavian countries. Hey New and Harald. We are the new world leaders
Hey... Switzerland was/is always neutral...
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>the statement isn't that since you are pro-war you are a coward for not enlisting (that is your logic), the question is if you are pro-war why haven't you enlisted...very different things...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So says you, but "a meaning" has been fleshed out here, and it isn't exactly flattering. You are certainly welcome to suggest that you have a different meaning when you ask this question. That should be a kick with what you come up with. Me? I'll just ask why you are not a human shield yet, whenever you ask your enlistment question. Sound fair?
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
move on folks, nothing to see here...just a 32 year old and a 41 year old fighting on the internet....sigh
g
You said you didn't care what I did with regard to post topics we both may be participating in, so you should be quite amicable with the counter-response I suggested I would be using toward your enlistment query. What is the problem here? What "complaints" are you speaking of that require PM? You seem to have bolted off in a rogue direction here, honestly.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
did you accept?? no, you questioned my word immediately...telling me my words are cheap...nice but i don't have to accept that...
you decided to come to my thread...you decided to add nothing about rumsfled nor his past with saddam...
you decided to rant about liberals in hollywood...
if you want to rant about that, fine, start your own freakin thread....
you want to ask why i am not a human shield?? i will answer that gladly...i don't believe in it...i do not think it will save lives, it only puts more lives in danger...senselessly dying, or killing, is wrong...
so can you answer my question? hell, don't answer, i don't care....i have absolutely no questions for you...
i'm irish with only brothers...we settled things by fighting...no big thing to me...we still loved each other after the nose bleeds and black eyes...since you are going on and on about me calling you a coward i figured it was a good way to settle this...if not, that is fine too...you were the one who brings up coward and brings up that i am doing this over phone lines...i am willing to talk face to face...the thing is it is my thread (was as i assume g'rat will be closing this soon), yet you keep coming back trying to start a flame war and staying no where near on topic...that is ok i guess, flame wars over the phone lines, but i don't flame war on the net...i prefer face to face for that talk
again, maybe i am just old fashioned, but if someone tries to end a fight and even goes to the point of saying sorry, you don't jump right back down their throat...it won't sit well with people...you may call it a "rogue direction", but if someone questions my word about trying to end a hostile discussion, and that person is consuming a thread i started, a thread that he could have avoided just by passing it by, then i just assume that person has hostile intent...that is fine with me...i can be hostile too, i just prefer it in person....funny that way....
so once again....i will never ask you any questions....i will never post to any thread you start...i touched a nerve with you and i tried to say sorry, but i will never do that again...
[quote] If none of this "bothers" you, where in the world did "fist fight" come into this??? Has this encounter really come to the "last resort", or does that not apply when it comes to interpersonal matters? <hr></blockquote>
nothing you post about saddam nor bush nor rumsfeld nor human shield nor even cowardice bothers me...throwing an apology back in my face does...
hijacking a thread for your own amusement does
g
You want to get back on topic? Do it. I'm not stopping you. Why don't you answer the question in the last part of my last big post? ...Or maybe we should just go back to admiring your Rumsfield picture to be on-topic? Clearly, the only one here that has gotten into a knot is you. I'm cool. Maybe you should take a breath and be cool too?
Ironically, your doctoring of posts above seems to have left you no evidence that you even offered an apology, thus how could I have thrown an apology back in your face that was never offered? So all we have here is your statement that you would like to come to my hometown and beat me up because I enraged you over an apology that seemingly does not exist anymore.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
as for the question you want answered...hope this is the right one...
[quote] ***** I guess that presents a BIG problem then. Unless the UN is completely manned with veterans and active military personnel, they have no business whatsoever making decisions about war vs. no war by your logic.***** <hr></blockquote>
i think the people sending soldiers to war, the people sending boys off to kill and die, should be either veterans, active military or people willing to also go to war along side those soldiers....
that could include just about everyone...and to bring it back on topic...it would include rumsfeld since he is a trained navy pilot....
<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html" target="_blank">web page</a>
g
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>