Let's bomb all US based educational facilities that don't have the tighest security surrounding their chemical labs. Remember all that anthrax in the mail? American origins, dorkhole.
There are plenty of intelligent, well-educated people out there in the world who can convey what they know without condescension
And apparently you aren't one of them. The very fact that you 'scold' me for my posting demonstrates that you think you are in a superior position.
Quote:
I've both disagreed and agreed with sammi jo. I've occasionally found her frustrating, but I've also found her informative and have learned a thing or two from her. She is a better communicator than you, and doesn't even come close to your arrogance. You show very little inclination to explain and discuss, and a great inclination to assert, bicker, condescend, and pose.
Good job at completely missing the point and only reinforcing the point I was making. And you wonder why I question some posters' abilities...
Quote:
How comforting to know that after years of education and study that you haven't lost touch with your fifth grade sense of humor.
Interesting. You seem to think that education comes at a detriment to other areas of life. Hell, the assumptions you've made are amazing. Education is a result of interest in a topic and a desire to see it clearly.
And sorry my sense of humor isn't up to your standards. Wasn't it you that got on SJO's case for talking about maturity? Your condensation just came full circle and bit you in the ass.
Nice doing business with you. Come back when you stop complaining about your own behavior.
. The kind of information we are talking about here is stuff that is NOT YET available to the general public.
Isn't this the same thing you said when I posted all of the intel the bush admin had on Iraq? It's even been revealed 1000 times over that it was all they had. Anyone even remotely connected with Intelligence knows that in todays world everything significant is out in the open. It is the age of Open Intelligence. This is the huge shift in global intel that anyone who has spent even 10 minutes studying it knows.
You talking about closed intelligence is like a luddite saying os x is sold for intel. Not only do you have no clue what you are talking about, but you are completely wrong.
Unfortunately, you are actually more like a luddite who has seen numerous times that os x is not sold for intel, yet you ignorantly still believe it.
FACT: the idea that there is crucial info not available to the 'general public' is Hollywood rinky-dink. The real control of information in today's world lies squarely in marketing. Hence why a year ago I presented you with the info that we are now seeing such a big deal about.
Hell, it wasn't even a secret that the info being used in the buildup to the Iraq war was OPEN. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to take accessable information and make a case for war.
I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison.
Which chemical is that, SDW? You seem to know a lot about effectiveness of chemical weapons to make such a bold statement. So what are you referring to? Sarin? Mustard Gas? What?
I challenge you to point out one chemical agent that one vial of which could cause anything remotely like the toll on Sept. 11.
Which chemical is that, SDW? You seem to know a lot about effectiveness of chemical weapons to make such a bold statement. So what are you referring to? Sarin? Mustard Gas? What?
I challenge you to point out one chemical agent that one vial of which could cause anything remotely like the toll on Sept. 11.
Hope you don't mind my butting in.
Three actually, Nerve V-X agent, Cyclosarin & Sarin.
The latter two involved in the horrific attack on the people of Halabji in Iraq, march 17th 1988.
This one attack chemical attack killed over 5000 civilians.. mostly women and babies. It also left over 7000 permanently injured, blinded, birth deformities and other conditions directly related to the attack.
So consider your question / challenge answered.
You may be bright Giant, no one doubts that, but aside from that, your choice of comparatives is tasteless in the extreme. With your academic background..you should know better.
Three actually, Nerve V-X agent, Cyclosarin & Sarin.
The latter two involved in the horrific attack on the people of Halabji in Iraq, march 17th 1988.
This one attack chemical attack killed over 5000 civilians.. mostly women and babies. It also left over 7000 permanently injured, blinded, birth deformities and other conditions directly related to the attack.
So consider your question / challenge answered.
You may be bright Giant, no one doubts that, but aside from that, your choice of comparatives is tasteless in the extreme. With your academic background..you should know better.
Actually, no. You are factually wrong on may counts, and in the process actually prove my point.
First the factual problems:
Halabja, not halabji
Secondly, you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s). There are conflicting studies on this and you naming random chemicals is either pure fabrication or aquisition of information solely from secondary sources.
Furthewrmore, tons of these chemicals were dropped on Halabja(h) in multiple runs, so the fact that tons of the agents caused the deaths of 5000 means that one small vial will do immensely less.
As such, my challenge has been far from met and you have only succeeded in proving my point for me. Thank you.
As for the 'academic' label that has recently been pinned to me, maybe you should think twice about stereotyping. Especially right after you've been demonstrated to be so dead wrong.
Check out Josh Marshall pointing out that Fleischer flat out lied in the recent exchange:
Quote:
It's usually a bad sign when a criminal defendant has half a dozen defenses against the same charge. You know the drill: I couldn't have been there. I have an alibi. But if I was there I didn't have my glasses. And if I did have my glasses, then I saw someone else do it. And if I did it, well, let me tell you what happened to me when I was three ...
Needless to say, this brings us to Mr. Ari Fleischer.
An alert reader just brought Richard Stevenson's article in the Times' today to my attention -- and in particular this quote ...
But Mr. Fleischer said Mr. Wilson's report was vague and did not specifically address the main problem with the intelligence, that documents purporting to document Iraq's efforts were almost certainly forged.
"He spent eight days in Niger and concluded that Niger denied the allegation," Mr. Fleischer said. "Well, typically nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonproliferation."
Let's take this one step at a time.
First of all, Fleischer is lying. Wilson didn't conclude that Niger "denied the allegation." He concluded, after investigating the allegations from a number of vantage points, that the purported sale was close to impossible, or at least quite unlikely. The reasoning turned on the structure of Niger's uranium consortium, how the uranium is accounted for, and how much Iraq was alleged to have purchased. (Why Stevenson didn't note this, shall we say, 'discrepancy' I have no idea.)
Fleischer is lying -- there's no other way to describe it -- about what Wilson's report said to make it seem less significant than it was. (If Fleischer had said Wilson's reasoning was flawed or his investigation incomplete, then you could say he was spinning or distorting. But saying he said something completely different from what he said means he's lying.) He's making it seem less significant than it was to make it appear less culpable that the White House ignored his findings. But the White House's story is that it never heard about his findings. So why the need to discredit his report?
The answer is obvious. They're trying to set up multiple lines of defense.
We didn't hear about it. But if we did hear about it, it didn't amount to much so we ignored it.
( B ) Secondly, you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s). There are conflicting studies on this and you naming random chemicals is either pure fabrication or aquisition of information solely from secondary sources.
( C ) Furthewrmore, tons of these chemicals were dropped on Halabja(h) in multiple runs, so the fact that tons of the agents caused the deaths of 5000 means that one small vial will do immensely less.
( D ) As for the 'academic' label that has recently been pinned to me, maybe you should think twice about stereotyping. Especially right after you've been demonstrated to be so dead wrong.
REPLY
( A ) I mis-spelt it ..wow..not bad for a 2 AM stint.
( C ) I responded in relation to "effect " not dispersal method. A vial of any of those would kill the same number if not more than 9/11. If you had dropped any one of those vials ( with appropriate atomizing carrier vapour / gases) into the airconditioning units of the WTC towers it would have caused more deaths.since there would have been no warning until people started dropping like flies all around you..
So your point is mute..you don't have an argument unless you can arrange for two seperate but matching buildings to be attacked..one with sarin etc & the other with a fully laden jet..
Same number of people in each building..no warnings no protective suits nothing...
Gas would win hands down....like I said, even if you managed to fully evacuate, the gas / toxin would have already commenced its insidious work..
( D ) If my memory serves me correct, your the one who started throwing your alleged academic mantle around..telling everyone how hard you worked & how much your education cost..blah blah..Sounds like you wasted your money...
As regards calling me a liar, all I can say is you must have graduated frm the Adolf Eichmann school of diplomacy...
So Giant,
It really wouldn't hurt you to have a little humility..who knows...you might learn something..
Good luck with that janitor's job of yours..hope you keep it...
( A ) I mis-spelt it ..wow..not bad for a 2 AM stint.
Quite kind of you to not point out giant's wonderful spellings like "Furthewrmore". Of course, that's merely a typo of an English word, and not nearly so important for demonstrating one's erudition as the spelling of "Halabja".
It really wouldn't hurt you to have a little humility..who knows...you might learn something..
I wonder if he'll pay any attention if a diverse enough group of people keep noticing this.
Quite kind of you to not point out giant's wonderful spellings like "Furthewrmore". Of course, that's merely a typo of an English word, and not nearly so important for demonstrating one's erudition as the spelling of "Halabja".
Of course, the obvious difference is that he didn't accidentally hit the key typing.
But then again, who are you to talk sh*line. This is another case of you criticizing people for things you did first. You are the biggest hypocrite on these boards. Get a life.
So I point out that there are conflicting reports (which a little research would reveal to you, and you link to a press release (not even one of the 4 or 5 actual studies) and consider it case closed. Good job at flat out additmitting you are willing to ignore evidence and only superficialy research in a feeble attempt to prove a point.
Quote:
( C ) I responded in relation to "effect " not dispersal method. A vial of any of those would kill the same number if not more than 9/11.
No it wouldn't. That's simply false.
Quote:
( D ) If my memory serves me correct, your the one who started throwing your alleged academic mantle around
Your memory does not serve you correctly. I just advocate actually studying something at least a little before actually forming an opinion. Go back and look, then shut the **** up.
Another lesson in real intellectualism as opposed to your psuedo intelectualism..
Look at this. I advocate that people should at least study a little before forming an opinion and all of a sudden words like academic and intellectualism get thrown around as an insult
So basically you think that informing your view is not important. In other words, you admit to being knowingly ignorant.
Your only defense after being demonstrated wrong is, 'only assholes inform their opinions!' Get a clue.
there ya go, aquafire. I got on sh*tline's case for making an opinon on something without reading it (which he admited he did) and other posters started calling it 'academic elitism.' The only mention of my work was in direct refence to 'sea of information,' which quite frankly I'm in the middle of. What, is trumptman now an asshole for mentioning his real estate investments when the discussion turns to real estate?
Regardless, it was others that brought it up, so don't throw around baseless accusations.
Look at this. I advocate that people should at least study a little before forming an opinion and all of a sudden words like academic and intellectualism get thrown around as an insult
So basically you think that informing your view is not important. In other words, you admit to being knowingly ignorant.
Your only defense after being demonstrated wrong is, 'only assholes inform their opinions!' Get a clue.
Time and time again, people have explained what it is that they find so obnoxious about your approach and attitude, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we think it's good to study and have well-informed opinions, it has nothing to do with advocating ignorance over true academic and intellectual virtues.
Given how little you're getting out of what's being said to you in the small, easily-digested confines of this one thread, I'm certainly not inclined to believe, no matter how much and how widely you've read, that your understanding of what you've read is particularly profound or particularly free from bias.
When someone points, look at where they're pointing, rather than staring at the end of their finger.
Time and time again, people have explained what it is that they find so obnoxious about your approach and attitude, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we think it's good to study and have well-informed opinions, it has nothing to do with advocating ignorance over true academic and intellectual virtues.
No, time and time again, just go a couple posts back, people have thrown around words like 'acedemic' in an attempt to insult, especially when just proven wrong about something.
Of course, they wouldn't be forming unrealitic views if they took a moment to actually look up what they are talking about.
Quote:
Given how little you're getting out of what's being said to you in the small, easily-digested confines of this one thread, I'm certainly not inclined to believe, no matter how much and how widely you've read, that your understanding of what you've read is particularly profound or particularly free from bias.
Intesting. Note what your citicism of me in the thread cited above:
Quote:
You're also being evasive if you don't come out and state your opinion on this matter...Or do you wish to cop out and leave it at "Well, there's something funny going on, anyone who bothers can see it, and I'm not saying any more."?
Here's a news flash: did you ever stop and thing that maybe *gasp* I realize that it is premature to settle on an theory. Sure, there are very clear broader directions that the evidence points, but the situation is far too complex for anyone (probably even including the people involved) to claim they know exactly what happened.
So in one place you attack me for not prematurely forming an opinion, but in other places you consider it a bad thing. At least have some consistancy.
Hell, just in the post above you can see my exchange with aguefire where I point out that he is coming to a premature conclusion based on insuficient evidence (regarding chemicals used).
Sorry, but that accusation of yours also falls flat.
Quote:
When someone points, look at where they're pointing, rather than staring at the end of their finger.
Um, every thing you pointed at has been exactly what you yourlself do, right down to exact words. Maybe you need to stop all your pointing and look at yourself.
What's your point shetline? Maybe it's you who are showing off?! reaming your your elloquence down our throats? and your ability to be 'non-biased' by continually, and to my mind pointlessly, attacking Giant.
Maybe he feels that his position allows him more exposure to a 'sea of info' than most people and he lets us know. So what?!?!
Its better than having groundless fixated opinions and party politics that have virtually nothing but radio-talk show logic as a basis for political ideas . . . . especially when the stakes are America's standing on the world's stage and the lives of young American men and women . . . not to speak of Iraqis . . . .
So giant lords it over SD... etc, so what? maybe he needs to know that a sea of facts is better than rabidly clung-to positions without foundation.
you're an intelligent guy, why are you posing? There are real issues in this and similar threads let's not derail them without reason . . .
there ya go, aquafire. I got on sh*tline's case for making an opinon on something without reading it (which he admited he did) and other posters started calling it 'academic elitism.'
I'll "admit" something else about skimming: I skimmed a lot of material in college too, while others were carefully plodding through every word of their texts, marking key phrases with yellow highlighter. My classroom notes were a sparse scrawl. Yet somehow I managed to graduate Summa Cum Laude, with a 3.96 GPA, at the top of my class in the College of Computer Science division of the university I attended.
(Oh, I can see it already... rather than seeing what I've just said in the context of this conversation, you'll be ready to jump on my case for hypocritically flaunting my own academic credentials. And you really won't see a difference.)
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
There. Maybe that will sink in.
What I dismiss is your automatic dismissal of any opinion formed by any other method.
What I dismiss is your approach of saying essentially, "Here's the stack of books and articles that I've read. Come back in a few years when your stack is just as high, and then maybe you'll be worthy of breathing the air I exhaled when stating my opinion."
My classroom notes were a sparse scrawl. Yet somehow I managed to graduate Summa Cum Laude, with a 3.96 GPA, at the top of my class in the College of Computer Science division of the university I attended.
I can't ****ing believe you. Never have I bragged about my academic standing, gpa or anything here. The closest I've come is in discussions of access to info, where I point out I have great access to info.
Basically all you are saying is 'look how smart I am! I graduated colledge without trying!' Talk about trying to act superior and using academics to prop up your standing.
Here's a hint: college is designed to help you graduate. The hardest part is paying for it.
Hell, what you got mad at me about was directing SDW to specific publication about intelligence when he was talking about intelligence.
You are such a damn hypocrite.
Quote:
(Oh, I can see it already... rather than seeing what I've just said in the context of this conversation, you'll be ready to jump on my case for hypocritically flaunting my own academic credentials. And you really won't see a difference.)
I have never tried to use academic 'rank' to validate a point; I use info specific to the issue. Whenever I have discussed education it has been in relation to a particular subject.
The fact that you think the above matters at all just demonstrates the elitist attitude you harbor. It doesn't matter what credentials you have, what matters is whether or not you have bother to inform your view.
I don't care if you never finished the eigth grade. What's important is taking the effort to learn about things before forming views.
Quote:
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
But apparently you think that graduating college by skimming somehow exempts you from actually informing yourself on any particular subject.
Quote:
"Here's the stack of books and articles that I've read. Come back in a few years when your stack is just as high, and then maybe you'll be worthy of breathing the air I exhaled when stating my opinion."
What I listed was in reference to a particular subject that SDW was commenting on and obviously knew nothing about. If he was saying that OS X was unix based and that humans have 6 legs, I would have sent him towards info on that.
That is very different from acting like you and thinking that your GPA is at all relevant.
What's your point shetline? Maybe it's you who are showing off?! reaming your your elloquence down our throats? and your ability to be 'non-biased' by continually, and to my mind pointlessly, attacking Giant.
Perhaps I've just let my emotions get the better of me, but damn it, I've really found giant to have been particularly insufferable of late.
Perhaps it's because underneath all the smoke and flames, my opinions are certainly a lot closer to giant than to SDW on most things. That's what's annoying. Given giant's recent "prove your academic balls are as big as mine before you speak, you ignorant peon" approach to things, I'd rather not have him on my side in a debate.
Showing off? Maybe a little... but don't most people post on message boards because they like to hear themselves type?
Maybe he feels that his position allows him more exposure to a 'sea of info' than most people and he lets us know. So what?!?!
Merely grandstanding in-and-of-itself wouldn't be so bad. If he's worked hard, maybe he's earned a little puffery. But giant does not use his knowledge very well to elucidate or inform, to explain why he believes as he believes. He seems more interested in strutting about and playing catch-me-if-you-can than anything else. I find that objectionable.
Its better than having groundless fixated opinions and party politics that have virtually nothing but radio-talk show logic as a basis for political ideas . . . . especially when the stakes are America's standing on the world's stage and the lives of young American men and women . . . not to speak of Iraqis . . . .
So giant lords it over SD... etc, so what? maybe he needs to know that a sea of facts is better than rabidly clung-to positions without foundation.
I don't know that it really is better. Someone like giant is only going to help make the positions he advocates even more unpalatable to the radio talk show crowd, or to anyone else for that matter. If what he's ultimately after is encouraging a proper skepticism about what the government says and does, he's more likely to harm that cause than help it with his approach.
you're an intelligent guy, why are you posing? There are real issues in this and similar threads let's not derail them without reason . . .
I'm just trying to be consistent about what I expect from anyone when they express a viewpoint and attempt to advocate that viewpoint to someone else. If this has come off as mere "posing", I apologize.
As for derailing the thread... yes, maybe by not letting go of my frustration I'm contributing to that problem, but in my own weak defense I think it fair to say that the derailment was well under way without me, and perhaps a meta-thread about how people discuss things in a thread has some value of its own.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Let's bomb all US based educational facilities that don't have the tighest security surrounding their chemical labs. Remember all that anthrax in the mail? American origins, dorkhole.
Two Words:
Saddam Hussein
Originally posted by shetline
There are plenty of intelligent, well-educated people out there in the world who can convey what they know without condescension
And apparently you aren't one of them. The very fact that you 'scold' me for my posting demonstrates that you think you are in a superior position.
I've both disagreed and agreed with sammi jo. I've occasionally found her frustrating, but I've also found her informative and have learned a thing or two from her. She is a better communicator than you, and doesn't even come close to your arrogance. You show very little inclination to explain and discuss, and a great inclination to assert, bicker, condescend, and pose.
Good job at completely missing the point and only reinforcing the point I was making. And you wonder why I question some posters' abilities...
How comforting to know that after years of education and study that you haven't lost touch with your fifth grade sense of humor.
Interesting. You seem to think that education comes at a detriment to other areas of life. Hell, the assumptions you've made are amazing. Education is a result of interest in a topic and a desire to see it clearly.
And sorry my sense of humor isn't up to your standards. Wasn't it you that got on SJO's case for talking about maturity? Your condensation just came full circle and bit you in the ass.
Nice doing business with you. Come back when you stop complaining about your own behavior.
Originally posted by SDW2001
. The kind of information we are talking about here is stuff that is NOT YET available to the general public.
Isn't this the same thing you said when I posted all of the intel the bush admin had on Iraq? It's even been revealed 1000 times over that it was all they had. Anyone even remotely connected with Intelligence knows that in todays world everything significant is out in the open. It is the age of Open Intelligence. This is the huge shift in global intel that anyone who has spent even 10 minutes studying it knows.
You talking about closed intelligence is like a luddite saying os x is sold for intel. Not only do you have no clue what you are talking about, but you are completely wrong.
Unfortunately, you are actually more like a luddite who has seen numerous times that os x is not sold for intel, yet you ignorantly still believe it.
FACT: the idea that there is crucial info not available to the 'general public' is Hollywood rinky-dink. The real control of information in today's world lies squarely in marketing. Hence why a year ago I presented you with the info that we are now seeing such a big deal about.
Hell, it wasn't even a secret that the info being used in the buildup to the Iraq war was OPEN. The expressed purpose of the Office of Special Plans was to take accessable information and make a case for war.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I say that's pretty naive in a post 9/11 world where even a small vial of a chemical agent given to a group like Al-Qadea could make the aformentioned world-altering day look small by comparison.
Which chemical is that, SDW? You seem to know a lot about effectiveness of chemical weapons to make such a bold statement. So what are you referring to? Sarin? Mustard Gas? What?
I challenge you to point out one chemical agent that one vial of which could cause anything remotely like the toll on Sept. 11.
Originally posted by giant
Which chemical is that, SDW? You seem to know a lot about effectiveness of chemical weapons to make such a bold statement. So what are you referring to? Sarin? Mustard Gas? What?
I challenge you to point out one chemical agent that one vial of which could cause anything remotely like the toll on Sept. 11.
Hope you don't mind my butting in.
Three actually, Nerve V-X agent, Cyclosarin & Sarin.
The latter two involved in the horrific attack on the people of Halabji in Iraq, march 17th 1988.
This one attack chemical attack killed over 5000 civilians.. mostly women and babies. It also left over 7000 permanently injured, blinded, birth deformities and other conditions directly related to the attack.
So consider your question / challenge answered.
You may be bright Giant, no one doubts that, but aside from that, your choice of comparatives is tasteless in the extreme. With your academic background..you should know better.
Originally posted by aquafire
Hope you don't mind my butting in.
Three actually, Nerve V-X agent, Cyclosarin & Sarin.
The latter two involved in the horrific attack on the people of Halabji in Iraq, march 17th 1988.
This one attack chemical attack killed over 5000 civilians.. mostly women and babies. It also left over 7000 permanently injured, blinded, birth deformities and other conditions directly related to the attack.
So consider your question / challenge answered.
You may be bright Giant, no one doubts that, but aside from that, your choice of comparatives is tasteless in the extreme. With your academic background..you should know better.
Actually, no. You are factually wrong on may counts, and in the process actually prove my point.
First the factual problems:
Halabja, not halabji
Secondly, you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s). There are conflicting studies on this and you naming random chemicals is either pure fabrication or aquisition of information solely from secondary sources.
Furthewrmore, tons of these chemicals were dropped on Halabja(h) in multiple runs, so the fact that tons of the agents caused the deaths of 5000 means that one small vial will do immensely less.
As such, my challenge has been far from met and you have only succeeded in proving my point for me. Thank you.
As for the 'academic' label that has recently been pinned to me, maybe you should think twice about stereotyping. Especially right after you've been demonstrated to be so dead wrong.
It's usually a bad sign when a criminal defendant has half a dozen defenses against the same charge. You know the drill: I couldn't have been there. I have an alibi. But if I was there I didn't have my glasses. And if I did have my glasses, then I saw someone else do it. And if I did it, well, let me tell you what happened to me when I was three ...
Needless to say, this brings us to Mr. Ari Fleischer.
An alert reader just brought Richard Stevenson's article in the Times' today to my attention -- and in particular this quote ...
But Mr. Fleischer said Mr. Wilson's report was vague and did not specifically address the main problem with the intelligence, that documents purporting to document Iraq's efforts were almost certainly forged.
"He spent eight days in Niger and concluded that Niger denied the allegation," Mr. Fleischer said. "Well, typically nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonproliferation."
Let's take this one step at a time.
First of all, Fleischer is lying. Wilson didn't conclude that Niger "denied the allegation." He concluded, after investigating the allegations from a number of vantage points, that the purported sale was close to impossible, or at least quite unlikely. The reasoning turned on the structure of Niger's uranium consortium, how the uranium is accounted for, and how much Iraq was alleged to have purchased. (Why Stevenson didn't note this, shall we say, 'discrepancy' I have no idea.)
Fleischer is lying -- there's no other way to describe it -- about what Wilson's report said to make it seem less significant than it was. (If Fleischer had said Wilson's reasoning was flawed or his investigation incomplete, then you could say he was spinning or distorting. But saying he said something completely different from what he said means he's lying.) He's making it seem less significant than it was to make it appear less culpable that the White House ignored his findings. But the White House's story is that it never heard about his findings. So why the need to discredit his report?
The answer is obvious. They're trying to set up multiple lines of defense.
We didn't hear about it. But if we did hear about it, it didn't amount to much so we ignored it.
Let's have one defense and stick with it, okay?
www.talkingpointsmemo.com
Originally posted by giant
( A ) Halabja, not halabji
( B ) Secondly, you are lying about what was used. The only known chemical used was Mustard Gas. Beyond that the likely chemical used was cyanide or *possibly* *unknown* nerve agent(s). There are conflicting studies on this and you naming random chemicals is either pure fabrication or aquisition of information solely from secondary sources.
( C ) Furthewrmore, tons of these chemicals were dropped on Halabja(h) in multiple runs, so the fact that tons of the agents caused the deaths of 5000 means that one small vial will do immensely less.
( D ) As for the 'academic' label that has recently been pinned to me, maybe you should think twice about stereotyping. Especially right after you've been demonstrated to be so dead wrong.
REPLY
( A ) I mis-spelt it ..wow..not bad for a 2 AM stint.
( B )
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm
( C ) I responded in relation to "effect " not dispersal method. A vial of any of those would kill the same number if not more than 9/11. If you had dropped any one of those vials ( with appropriate atomizing carrier vapour / gases) into the airconditioning units of the WTC towers it would have caused more deaths.since there would have been no warning until people started dropping like flies all around you..
So your point is mute..you don't have an argument unless you can arrange for two seperate but matching buildings to be attacked..one with sarin etc & the other with a fully laden jet..
Same number of people in each building..no warnings no protective suits nothing...
Gas would win hands down....like I said, even if you managed to fully evacuate, the gas / toxin would have already commenced its insidious work..
( D ) If my memory serves me correct, your the one who started throwing your alleged academic mantle around..telling everyone how hard you worked & how much your education cost..blah blah..Sounds like you wasted your money...
As regards calling me a liar, all I can say is you must have graduated frm the Adolf Eichmann school of diplomacy...
So Giant,
It really wouldn't hurt you to have a little humility..who knows...you might learn something..
Good luck with that janitor's job of yours..hope you keep it...
Aquafire.
Originally posted by aquafire
( A ) I mis-spelt it ..wow..not bad for a 2 AM stint.
Quite kind of you to not point out giant's wonderful spellings like "Furthewrmore". Of course, that's merely a typo of an English word, and not nearly so important for demonstrating one's erudition as the spelling of "Halabja".
It really wouldn't hurt you to have a little humility..who knows...you might learn something..
I wonder if he'll pay any attention if a diverse enough group of people keep noticing this.
Originally posted by shetline
Quite kind of you to not point out giant's wonderful spellings like "Furthewrmore". Of course, that's merely a typo of an English word, and not nearly so important for demonstrating one's erudition as the spelling of "Halabja".
Of course, the obvious difference is that he didn't accidentally hit the key typing.
But then again, who are you to talk sh*line. This is another case of you criticizing people for things you did first. You are the biggest hypocrite on these boards. Get a life.
( B )
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm
So I point out that there are conflicting reports (which a little research would reveal to you, and you link to a press release (not even one of the 4 or 5 actual studies) and consider it case closed. Good job at flat out additmitting you are willing to ignore evidence and only superficialy research in a feeble attempt to prove a point.
( C ) I responded in relation to "effect " not dispersal method. A vial of any of those would kill the same number if not more than 9/11.
No it wouldn't. That's simply false.
( D ) If my memory serves me correct, your the one who started throwing your alleged academic mantle around
Your memory does not serve you correctly. I just advocate actually studying something at least a little before actually forming an opinion. Go back and look, then shut the **** up.
Originally posted by giant
Of course, the obvious difference is that he didn't accidentally hit the key typing.
Hey Giant..read thread..didn't say anything about accidently hitting, I just simply mis-spelt it ..there ya go Giant. does it make you feel better ?
Another lesson in real intellectualism as opposed to your psuedo intelectualism..
You get to admit your mistakes..that's what grown ups do....
Originally posted by aquafire
Another lesson in real intellectualism as opposed to your psuedo intelectualism..
Look at this. I advocate that people should at least study a little before forming an opinion and all of a sudden words like academic and intellectualism get thrown around as an insult
So basically you think that informing your view is not important. In other words, you admit to being knowingly ignorant.
Your only defense after being demonstrated wrong is, 'only assholes inform their opinions!' Get a clue.
there ya go, aquafire. I got on sh*tline's case for making an opinon on something without reading it (which he admited he did) and other posters started calling it 'academic elitism.' The only mention of my work was in direct refence to 'sea of information,' which quite frankly I'm in the middle of. What, is trumptman now an asshole for mentioning his real estate investments when the discussion turns to real estate?
Regardless, it was others that brought it up, so don't throw around baseless accusations.
Originally posted by giant
Look at this. I advocate that people should at least study a little before forming an opinion and all of a sudden words like academic and intellectualism get thrown around as an insult
So basically you think that informing your view is not important. In other words, you admit to being knowingly ignorant.
Your only defense after being demonstrated wrong is, 'only assholes inform their opinions!' Get a clue.
Time and time again, people have explained what it is that they find so obnoxious about your approach and attitude, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we think it's good to study and have well-informed opinions, it has nothing to do with advocating ignorance over true academic and intellectual virtues.
Given how little you're getting out of what's being said to you in the small, easily-digested confines of this one thread, I'm certainly not inclined to believe, no matter how much and how widely you've read, that your understanding of what you've read is particularly profound or particularly free from bias.
When someone points, look at where they're pointing, rather than staring at the end of their finger.
Originally posted by shetline
Time and time again, people have explained what it is that they find so obnoxious about your approach and attitude, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we think it's good to study and have well-informed opinions, it has nothing to do with advocating ignorance over true academic and intellectual virtues.
No, time and time again, just go a couple posts back, people have thrown around words like 'acedemic' in an attempt to insult, especially when just proven wrong about something.
Of course, they wouldn't be forming unrealitic views if they took a moment to actually look up what they are talking about.
Given how little you're getting out of what's being said to you in the small, easily-digested confines of this one thread, I'm certainly not inclined to believe, no matter how much and how widely you've read, that your understanding of what you've read is particularly profound or particularly free from bias.
Intesting. Note what your citicism of me in the thread cited above:
You're also being evasive if you don't come out and state your opinion on this matter...Or do you wish to cop out and leave it at "Well, there's something funny going on, anyone who bothers can see it, and I'm not saying any more."?
Here's a news flash: did you ever stop and thing that maybe *gasp* I realize that it is premature to settle on an theory. Sure, there are very clear broader directions that the evidence points, but the situation is far too complex for anyone (probably even including the people involved) to claim they know exactly what happened.
So in one place you attack me for not prematurely forming an opinion, but in other places you consider it a bad thing. At least have some consistancy.
Hell, just in the post above you can see my exchange with aguefire where I point out that he is coming to a premature conclusion based on insuficient evidence (regarding chemicals used).
Sorry, but that accusation of yours also falls flat.
When someone points, look at where they're pointing, rather than staring at the end of their finger.
Um, every thing you pointed at has been exactly what you yourlself do, right down to exact words. Maybe you need to stop all your pointing and look at yourself.
Maybe he feels that his position allows him more exposure to a 'sea of info' than most people and he lets us know. So what?!?!
Its better than having groundless fixated opinions and party politics that have virtually nothing but radio-talk show logic as a basis for political ideas . . . . especially when the stakes are America's standing on the world's stage and the lives of young American men and women . . . not to speak of Iraqis . . . .
So giant lords it over SD... etc, so what? maybe he needs to know that a sea of facts is better than rabidly clung-to positions without foundation.
you're an intelligent guy, why are you posing? There are real issues in this and similar threads let's not derail them without reason . . .
Originally posted by giant
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...37&#post402037
there ya go, aquafire. I got on sh*tline's case for making an opinon on something without reading it (which he admited he did) and other posters started calling it 'academic elitism.'
I'll "admit" something else about skimming: I skimmed a lot of material in college too, while others were carefully plodding through every word of their texts, marking key phrases with yellow highlighter. My classroom notes were a sparse scrawl. Yet somehow I managed to graduate Summa Cum Laude, with a 3.96 GPA, at the top of my class in the College of Computer Science division of the university I attended.
(Oh, I can see it already... rather than seeing what I've just said in the context of this conversation, you'll be ready to jump on my case for hypocritically flaunting my own academic credentials. And you really won't see a difference.)
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
There. Maybe that will sink in.
What I dismiss is your automatic dismissal of any opinion formed by any other method.
What I dismiss is your approach of saying essentially, "Here's the stack of books and articles that I've read. Come back in a few years when your stack is just as high, and then maybe you'll be worthy of breathing the air I exhaled when stating my opinion."
Originally posted by shetline
My classroom notes were a sparse scrawl. Yet somehow I managed to graduate Summa Cum Laude, with a 3.96 GPA, at the top of my class in the College of Computer Science division of the university I attended.
I can't ****ing believe you. Never have I bragged about my academic standing, gpa or anything here. The closest I've come is in discussions of access to info, where I point out I have great access to info.
Basically all you are saying is 'look how smart I am! I graduated colledge without trying!' Talk about trying to act superior and using academics to prop up your standing.
Here's a hint: college is designed to help you graduate. The hardest part is paying for it.
Hell, what you got mad at me about was directing SDW to specific publication about intelligence when he was talking about intelligence.
You are such a damn hypocrite.
(Oh, I can see it already... rather than seeing what I've just said in the context of this conversation, you'll be ready to jump on my case for hypocritically flaunting my own academic credentials. And you really won't see a difference.)
I have never tried to use academic 'rank' to validate a point; I use info specific to the issue. Whenever I have discussed education it has been in relation to a particular subject.
The fact that you think the above matters at all just demonstrates the elitist attitude you harbor. It doesn't matter what credentials you have, what matters is whether or not you have bother to inform your view.
I don't care if you never finished the eigth grade. What's important is taking the effort to learn about things before forming views.
I do not dismiss the value of in-depth study.
But apparently you think that graduating college by skimming somehow exempts you from actually informing yourself on any particular subject.
"Here's the stack of books and articles that I've read. Come back in a few years when your stack is just as high, and then maybe you'll be worthy of breathing the air I exhaled when stating my opinion."
What I listed was in reference to a particular subject that SDW was commenting on and obviously knew nothing about. If he was saying that OS X was unix based and that humans have 6 legs, I would have sent him towards info on that.
That is very different from acting like you and thinking that your GPA is at all relevant.
Originally posted by pfflam
What's your point shetline? Maybe it's you who are showing off?! reaming your your elloquence down our throats? and your ability to be 'non-biased' by continually, and to my mind pointlessly, attacking Giant.
Perhaps I've just let my emotions get the better of me, but damn it, I've really found giant to have been particularly insufferable of late.
Perhaps it's because underneath all the smoke and flames, my opinions are certainly a lot closer to giant than to SDW on most things. That's what's annoying. Given giant's recent "prove your academic balls are as big as mine before you speak, you ignorant peon" approach to things, I'd rather not have him on my side in a debate.
Showing off? Maybe a little... but don't most people post on message boards because they like to hear themselves type?
Maybe he feels that his position allows him more exposure to a 'sea of info' than most people and he lets us know. So what?!?!
Merely grandstanding in-and-of-itself wouldn't be so bad. If he's worked hard, maybe he's earned a little puffery. But giant does not use his knowledge very well to elucidate or inform, to explain why he believes as he believes. He seems more interested in strutting about and playing catch-me-if-you-can than anything else. I find that objectionable.
Its better than having groundless fixated opinions and party politics that have virtually nothing but radio-talk show logic as a basis for political ideas . . . . especially when the stakes are America's standing on the world's stage and the lives of young American men and women . . . not to speak of Iraqis . . . .
So giant lords it over SD... etc, so what? maybe he needs to know that a sea of facts is better than rabidly clung-to positions without foundation.
I don't know that it really is better. Someone like giant is only going to help make the positions he advocates even more unpalatable to the radio talk show crowd, or to anyone else for that matter. If what he's ultimately after is encouraging a proper skepticism about what the government says and does, he's more likely to harm that cause than help it with his approach.
you're an intelligent guy, why are you posing? There are real issues in this and similar threads let's not derail them without reason . . .
I'm just trying to be consistent about what I expect from anyone when they express a viewpoint and attempt to advocate that viewpoint to someone else. If this has come off as mere "posing", I apologize.
As for derailing the thread... yes, maybe by not letting go of my frustration I'm contributing to that problem, but in my own weak defense I think it fair to say that the derailment was well under way without me, and perhaps a meta-thread about how people discuss things in a thread has some value of its own.