Harald and tonton, those are the two funniest posts I've seen on AI for a long time.
NEWS FLASH: Plutonium is really difficult to make and requires a huge nuclear program. Didn't the word itself set off anyone else's BS alarms?
If Plutonium was found in Iraq, it would be the biggest global intelligence failure in the history of civilization. There is no way in hell that Iraq would be able to produce plutonium without the entire world knowing.
Note that the reported volume (barrels) was such that it would only have been domestic.
But, hey, maybe we should just take the word of Fox reporters and 19 year old marines.
But harald has a point in that funny comment. With all the G5 kids running around here, it's no surprise people on AI eat BS up.
...but, hey, maybe we should just take the word of Fox reporters and 19 year old marines...
Over left-leaning "journalists", anti-Bush mouthpieces and the worldwide "we-know-everything-even-though-we're-constantly-proven-wrong" brigade? Sure, I would.
I stumbled across that same story yesterday. My first thought was, "Holy! Moley! ...wait... why isn't this news all over the place? The Pittsburgh Tribune?!? Huh?"
Does anybody have any idea why this is being reported in only one, non-major newspaper?
its not, I saw it on usatoday, cnn, and boston.com a while ago(a few days I think), but it wasnt a big header, I think because they keep getting their 'hopes up' with big stories only to be 'let down'.
On the one hand, there has been a series of claims of the discovery of MWD. Every one has been proved incorrect so far.
actually, watch how ya word it(because you would bite our heads off on something we worded incorrectly). but anyways.. there have been no claims so far made by the U.S. that they have found anything. each time, the military itself says it is unconfirmed, and it has to do testing, and basically, dont get your hopes up that it is WMD. and each time it hasnt.. its the newsies(and people that like to mis-quote) that have it as being confirmed.
actually, watch how ya word it(because you would bite our heads off on something we worded incorrectly). but anyways.. there have been no claims so far made by the U.S. that they have found anything. each time, the military itself says it is unconfirmed, and it has to do testing, and basically, dont get your hopes up that it is WMD. and each time it hasnt.. its the newsies(and people that like to mis-quote) that have it as being confirmed.
So those marines quoted in the story are journalists. Got it.
Pardon me if I'm unwilling to take Gaint's claims about WGP as fact.
Giant's claims?
Quote:
pscates: Over left-leaning "journalists", anti-Bush mouthpieces and the worldwide "we-know-everything-even-though-we're-constantly-proven-wrong" brigade? Sure, I would.
That's funny! You sound just like one of those simple-minded folks that try to divide the whole world into two made-up extremes! It almost seems like you really mean it.
I like what Jon Stewart said on the daily show the other day: It's like ice skating. You take the high score and the low score and toss them out.
It's too bad there are no large numbers of extremely high-profile organizations where one could get information about nulear weapons, components and state capabilities.
Too bad folks don't remember learning about plutonium in school.
That's a great parody you make at simple-minded folks that try to paint simple-minded images of the world. You make it almost sound real.
Big difference between "simple" and "simple-minded". Learn that.
It's those of you who feel the need to see in hundreds of shades of gray and to view everything as a "complex, ever-evolving state of affairs" who make life harder than it has to be.
Most of us in the real world know how things work, how people behave, how evil exists, how good exists, how people change, how people lie, how people redeem themselves, how everything isn't always like it seems, when to trust, when to doubt, when to call something what it is, who is full of shit, etc.
So those marines quoted in the story are journalists. Got it.
And anyway ...
Of course, of course! Only annointed "journalists" are capable of telling things how they are. It takes years of schooling, an internship and a list of press credentials to be able to accurately convey something. Anyone else - military, everyday citizens, a grandmother, someone from Fox, etc. - is obviously too unsophisiticated and, well, stupid to be able to fully grasp the complexities of any given situation.
Interesting.
Keep talking, fellas. You're doing our work for us.
[with apologies to the 'rat, of course...not talking about him]
Big difference between "simple" and "simple-minded". Learn that.
It's those of you who feel the need to see in hundreds of shades of gray and to view everything as a "complex, ever-evolving state of affairs" who make life harder than it has to be.
Most of us in the real world know how things work, how people behave, how evil exists, how good exists, how people change, how people lie, how people redeem themselves, how everything isn't always like it seems, when to trust, when to doubt, when to call something what it is, who is full of shit, etc.
This guy is actually serious!
He's actually saying that the world is not a "complex, ever-evolving state of affairs."
Quote:
Most of us in the real world know how things work.
I really, honestly am not joking when I say I am surprised that someone who makes these comments knows how even a computer works.
How can you know how the world works when you are obviously uneducated enough to believe (and you really seem to believe it) that the world can be classified into a handful of dichotomies?
Of course, of course! Only annointed "journalists" are capable of telling things how they are. It takes years of schooling, an internship and a list of press credentials to be able to accurately convey something. Anyone else - military, everyday citizens, a grandmother, someone from Fox, etc. - is obviously too unsophisiticated and, well, stupid to be able to fully grasp the complexities of any given situation.
I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about here. You seem to be attacking journalists, then saying that journalists (someone from Fox) don't get the same kind of respect that journalists get. Huh?
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that a couple of 19-20 year old marines could know more about plutonium and its production than every single global, local, public, private, governmental, academic or research institute in the world.
Seriously. If I am misinterpreting you are saying in your post let me know. It really doesn't seem to make sense.
I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about here. You seem to be attacking journalists, then saying that journalists (someone from Fox) don't get the same kind of respect that journalists get. Huh?
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that a couple of 19-20 year old marines could know more about plutonium and its production than every single global, local, public, private, governmental, academic or research institute in the world.
Seriously. If I am misinterpreting you are saying in your post let me know. It really doesn't seem to make sense.
Let me help you out since things have to be so complex before you will even attempt to truly understand it.
He is saying that just becuase they are 19 year old marines, although their ages I do not believe were ever posted, although they were trained for what htey were doing by the military, can actually convey what they saw and not be reporters.
Simple fact, you do not have to be a reporter to convey what you saw to the world. You stated:
So those marines quoted in the story are journalists. Got it.
And anyway ...
... this affects my logic because:
As if they were making the claims that the media makes every time they post a new article on WMD or the smoking gun.
Here are the quotes I could find:
"It's amazing," Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist told the newspaper. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."
Lets see, nope, no claims of WMD, just the claim that the material is very radioactive.
How about:
Capt. John Seegar, a combat engineer commander from Houston, is currently running the operation in Al Tuwaitha. "I've never seen anything like it, ever," he told the Tribune-Review. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?"
Nope, no claims of WMD, just wondering how the site was missed. Still not following you Giant.
Maybe:
"This is significant," Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Richard Gonzales, head of the team, told the Army Times. "We would not be here if it was inconsequential."
Nah, stil only saying that it is a big deal, not what kind of big deal it was.
Nope, your point was wrong at first and your purposeful lack of understanding does not change that.
And as far as the poiint he was making about journalists, he was simply making the complaint that some journalists get more respect than others because of who they work for even if they post BS over and over. It really was not that hard of a concept.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I have some inside information. The next PowerBook will be the PowerBook G5 WGP. It gets a little hot but it's a desktop replacement.
Yep, but there is five years of life battery, and no need of lighting in the dark
NEWS FLASH: Plutonium is really difficult to make and requires a huge nuclear program. Didn't the word itself set off anyone else's BS alarms?
If Plutonium was found in Iraq, it would be the biggest global intelligence failure in the history of civilization. There is no way in hell that Iraq would be able to produce plutonium without the entire world knowing.
Note that the reported volume (barrels) was such that it would only have been domestic.
But, hey, maybe we should just take the word of Fox reporters and 19 year old marines.
But harald has a point in that funny comment. With all the G5 kids running around here, it's no surprise people on AI eat BS up.
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe they didn't produce it? Maybe you're wrong? Maybe "we" did know?
Mr H., meet Mr. Occam. You may find his bathroom products of interest.
Originally posted by Harald
Mr H., meet Mr. Occam. You may find his bathroom products of interest.
Pardon me if I'm unwilling to take Gaint's claims about WGP as fact.
Originally posted by giant
...but, hey, maybe we should just take the word of Fox reporters and 19 year old marines...
Over left-leaning "journalists", anti-Bush mouthpieces and the worldwide "we-know-everything-even-though-we're-constantly-proven-wrong" brigade? Sure, I would.
Originally posted by Scott
Pardon me if I'm unwilling to take Gaint's claims about WGP as fact.
Think about it:
On the one hand, there has been a series of claims of the discovery of MWD. Every one has been proved incorrect so far.
It had never been seriously claimed that SH had nukes; only the aged chem and bio agents we sold him.
Evidence of POTENTIAL dual use materials was faked. Plutonium requires more then a few tubes. It's DAMN hard to make. giant is of course right.
On the other hand ... um ...
Nah.
Mr. Occam, how do you get your chin so smooooooooooth?
Originally posted by tonton
Your explanations are pure weapons grade balonium.
MMMMMM Balonium.... (in homer simpson voice of course)
Originally posted by spotcatbug
I stumbled across that same story yesterday. My first thought was, "Holy! Moley! ...wait... why isn't this news all over the place? The Pittsburgh Tribune?!? Huh?"
Does anybody have any idea why this is being reported in only one, non-major newspaper?
its not, I saw it on usatoday, cnn, and boston.com a while ago(a few days I think), but it wasnt a big header, I think because they keep getting their 'hopes up' with big stories only to be 'let down'.
Originally posted by Harald
Think about it:
On the one hand, there has been a series of claims of the discovery of MWD. Every one has been proved incorrect so far.
actually, watch how ya word it(because you would bite our heads off on something we worded incorrectly). but anyways.. there have been no claims so far made by the U.S. that they have found anything. each time, the military itself says it is unconfirmed, and it has to do testing, and basically, dont get your hopes up that it is WMD. and each time it hasnt.. its the newsies(and people that like to mis-quote) that have it as being confirmed.
Originally posted by The General
actually, watch how ya word it(because you would bite our heads off on something we worded incorrectly). but anyways.. there have been no claims so far made by the U.S. that they have found anything. each time, the military itself says it is unconfirmed, and it has to do testing, and basically, dont get your hopes up that it is WMD. and each time it hasnt.. its the newsies(and people that like to mis-quote) that have it as being confirmed.
So those marines quoted in the story are journalists. Got it.
And anyway ...
... this affects my logic because:
Originally posted by Scott
Pardon me if I'm unwilling to take Gaint's claims about WGP as fact.
Giant's claims?
pscates: Over left-leaning "journalists", anti-Bush mouthpieces and the worldwide "we-know-everything-even-though-we're-constantly-proven-wrong" brigade? Sure, I would.
That's funny! You sound just like one of those simple-minded folks that try to divide the whole world into two made-up extremes! It almost seems like you really mean it.
I like what Jon Stewart said on the daily show the other day: It's like ice skating. You take the high score and the low score and toss them out.
It's too bad there are no large numbers of extremely high-profile organizations where one could get information about nulear weapons, components and state capabilities.
Too bad folks don't remember learning about plutonium in school.
Originally posted by giant
That's a great parody you make at simple-minded folks that try to paint simple-minded images of the world. You make it almost sound real.
Big difference between "simple" and "simple-minded". Learn that.
It's those of you who feel the need to see in hundreds of shades of gray and to view everything as a "complex, ever-evolving state of affairs" who make life harder than it has to be.
Most of us in the real world know how things work, how people behave, how evil exists, how good exists, how people change, how people lie, how people redeem themselves, how everything isn't always like it seems, when to trust, when to doubt, when to call something what it is, who is full of shit, etc.
Originally posted by Harald
So those marines quoted in the story are journalists. Got it.
And anyway ...
... this affects my logic because:
actually re-read what I had replied to again. and if ya dont get it the second time, then just skip it.
Originally posted by Harald
So those marines quoted in the story are journalists. Got it.
And anyway ...
Of course, of course! Only annointed "journalists" are capable of telling things how they are. It takes years of schooling, an internship and a list of press credentials to be able to accurately convey something. Anyone else - military, everyday citizens, a grandmother, someone from Fox, etc. - is obviously too unsophisiticated and, well, stupid to be able to fully grasp the complexities of any given situation.
Interesting.
Keep talking, fellas. You're doing our work for us.
[with apologies to the 'rat, of course...not talking about him]
Originally posted by pscates
Big difference between "simple" and "simple-minded". Learn that.
It's those of you who feel the need to see in hundreds of shades of gray and to view everything as a "complex, ever-evolving state of affairs" who make life harder than it has to be.
Most of us in the real world know how things work, how people behave, how evil exists, how good exists, how people change, how people lie, how people redeem themselves, how everything isn't always like it seems, when to trust, when to doubt, when to call something what it is, who is full of shit, etc.
This guy is actually serious!
He's actually saying that the world is not a "complex, ever-evolving state of affairs."
Most of us in the real world know how things work.
I really, honestly am not joking when I say I am surprised that someone who makes these comments knows how even a computer works.
How can you know how the world works when you are obviously uneducated enough to believe (and you really seem to believe it) that the world can be classified into a handful of dichotomies?
Originally posted by pscates
Of course, of course! Only annointed "journalists" are capable of telling things how they are. It takes years of schooling, an internship and a list of press credentials to be able to accurately convey something. Anyone else - military, everyday citizens, a grandmother, someone from Fox, etc. - is obviously too unsophisiticated and, well, stupid to be able to fully grasp the complexities of any given situation.
I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about here. You seem to be attacking journalists, then saying that journalists (someone from Fox) don't get the same kind of respect that journalists get. Huh?
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that a couple of 19-20 year old marines could know more about plutonium and its production than every single global, local, public, private, governmental, academic or research institute in the world.
Seriously. If I am misinterpreting you are saying in your post let me know. It really doesn't seem to make sense.
Originally posted by giant
I really, honestly am not joking when I say I am surprised that someone who makes these comments knows how even a computer works.
He doesn't. He uses a Mac.
Originally posted by bunge
That's good advice. I saw [I can't think of a funny name] before this one you've posted.
5 days.
I'm trying to figure something out. Has any new evidence been reported since I added this link?
Originally posted by giant
I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about here. You seem to be attacking journalists, then saying that journalists (someone from Fox) don't get the same kind of respect that journalists get. Huh?
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that a couple of 19-20 year old marines could know more about plutonium and its production than every single global, local, public, private, governmental, academic or research institute in the world.
Seriously. If I am misinterpreting you are saying in your post let me know. It really doesn't seem to make sense.
Let me help you out since things have to be so complex before you will even attempt to truly understand it.
He is saying that just becuase they are 19 year old marines, although their ages I do not believe were ever posted, although they were trained for what htey were doing by the military, can actually convey what they saw and not be reporters.
Simple fact, you do not have to be a reporter to convey what you saw to the world. You stated:
So those marines quoted in the story are journalists. Got it.
And anyway ...
... this affects my logic because:
As if they were making the claims that the media makes every time they post a new article on WMD or the smoking gun.
Here are the quotes I could find:
"It's amazing," Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist told the newspaper. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."
Lets see, nope, no claims of WMD, just the claim that the material is very radioactive.
How about:
Capt. John Seegar, a combat engineer commander from Houston, is currently running the operation in Al Tuwaitha. "I've never seen anything like it, ever," he told the Tribune-Review. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?"
Nope, no claims of WMD, just wondering how the site was missed. Still not following you Giant.
Maybe:
"This is significant," Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Richard Gonzales, head of the team, told the Army Times. "We would not be here if it was inconsequential."
Nah, stil only saying that it is a big deal, not what kind of big deal it was.
Nope, your point was wrong at first and your purposeful lack of understanding does not change that.
And as far as the poiint he was making about journalists, he was simply making the complaint that some journalists get more respect than others because of who they work for even if they post BS over and over. It really was not that hard of a concept.
Why do I even bother?