kelpdiver 2 #101 November 18, 2009 Quote Just admit that you were taken in and that you are now stupidly trying to backpedal and let it go... This whole thread casts doubt on your ability to recognize a good source from a bad one. One thing is for sure - the least effective way to let people forget about such an embarrassment is to keep posting (8 in a row) new entries to the thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #102 November 20, 2009 QuoteYour point is that you were taken by a joke and are now trying to make it look like you were not. I was inquiring; see the question mark on the thread title? May be new to you, but that denotes a question. Now would I be surprised to see the party that thinks Obama is a Muslim terroist also would post this; just listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter and that's what I walk away with. QuoteI don't... I bet you listen to him more than I do. My Dad likes him, I can't stand him. In fact, I don't like any of the talking heads. I listened to hos as a co-worled did and I like to hear what the opposition says, unlike the RW who wants to shield out any opposing views. Your views seem to be in line with Limbaugh's. QuoteYou seem to only dislike the ones from the right and drink the koolaid from the ones on the left... Oh, and drink the koolaid from satire sites. I don't find a lot of agreement with much the right has to say. As for the koolaid, I'm the one mixing it; my thoughts are simulaneously that of the left - no ear-bending. QuoteSee, this is where we differ. When I see radical paranoia from the right or the perception of it I'm not surprised, but think its stupid; you call it normal. I see you espouse typical things from the right, how are you different from garden variety RW? Do you think Obama is Muslim? Do you think he isn't an American-born man? Etc.. QuoteAnd when I see radical paranoia from the left or the perception of it I'm not surprised, but I think it is stupid; you claim it does not exist. And this is where you make yourself a centrist; you call extremists, all extremists stupid. The diifference is that in your world, any leftist is an extremist and only abortion doctor-killers are RW extremists, all others are normal. I think you are consdidered by most to be pretty RW extreme. QuoteThis just goes to show that you don't vet your sources... The irony is you jump on people for using what YOU call rags, but you stupidly tried to cite a well known satire program. So much for your hollow apology for your PA. I guess whatever gets you by at the moment. As fro well-known, I didn't, am I damned to hell because I didn't know the Onion was satire? Yet in great cheerleader fashion you ignore your conservative bretheren calling Pearl Harbor's attack a 1945 event. I see the fence swings one way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #103 November 20, 2009 Quote www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eXEMlMuesU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B3yuiE90LI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #104 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuote Just admit that you were taken in and that you are now stupidly trying to backpedal and let it go... This whole thread casts doubt on your ability to recognize a good source from a bad one. One thing is for sure - the least effective way to let people forget about such an embarrassment is to keep posting (8 in a row) new entries to the thread. I don't care if the world is aware I didn't know what the Onion was or is. I think that skit was hillarious and illustrative at showing what a bunch of homophobes conservatives are, even the Larry Craig variety. Not amazing that no neo-cons want to talk about GDP, the stock market or how Belgian thinks PH was attacked in 1945, they instead want to act as tho me not knowing the Onion is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more important. We hear your strawman loud and clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #105 November 20, 2009 Quote they instead want to act as tho me not knowing the Onion is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more important. We hear your strawman loud and clear. YOU created this strawman. Not anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #106 November 20, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Just admit that you were taken in and that you are now stupidly trying to backpedal and let it go... This whole thread casts doubt on your ability to recognize a good source from a bad one. One thing is for sure - the least effective way to let people forget about such an embarrassment is to keep posting (8 in a row) new entries to the thread. I don't care if the world is aware I didn't know what the Onion was or is. I think that skit was hillarious and illustrative at showing what a bunch of homophobes conservatives are, even the Larry Craig variety. Not amazing that no neo-cons want to talk about GDP, the stock market or how Belgian thinks PH was attacked in 1945, they instead want to act as tho me not knowing the Onion is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more important. We hear your strawman loud and clear. Maybe it's because I admitted I made a simple typing error, they accept that as something almost everybody does from time to time, and let it go at that. You, on the other hand, thought a satirical web site was real news and instead of doing a little checking you tried to say it was some kind of right-wing radical site and won't just come out and say you fucked up. One thing about SC: If you make a mistake and own up to it, people razz you a bit and move on. If you keep trying to squirm around and spin your way out of it they see right through and have a field day with it. For example, I typed 1945 as the year Pearl was attacked. I know, as do most people, it was 1941. Why did I type 1945? I don't know, but it wasn't becaue of ignorance. When you pointed out my error i went back, corrected it, and even added a statement to that effect at the end of the post.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #107 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuote they instead want to act as tho me not knowing the Onion is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more important. We hear your strawman loud and clear. YOU created this strawman. Not anyone else. And how did I supposedly do that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #108 November 20, 2009 Quote Maybe it's because I admitted I made a simple typing error, they accept that as something almost everybody does from time to time, and let it go at that. Nah, a typing error generally has an adjacent key-stroke, the 1 and 5 aren't that close, esp from a guy who likes to split hairs. Nope, cheerleading; you betcha style It's detailed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html ....at the end of the day, we stick together.... Yep, cheerleaders..... Quote You, on the other hand, thought a satirical web site was real news and instead of doing a little checking you tried to say it was some kind of right-wing radical site and won't just come out and say you fucked up. I inquired, as per the question mark, but I do admit it was a skit, you OTOH can't bring yourself to admit the truth; that is a difference. Quote One thing about SC: If you make a mistake and own up to it, people razz you a bit and move on. And that's what I'm trying to impart upon you. Quote If you keep trying to squirm around and spin your way out of it they see right through and have a field day with it Then why is no one razzing you for what you refuse to admit? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html Cheerleaders, that's why. Quote For example, I typed 1945 as the year Pearl was attacked. I know, as do most people, it was 1941. Well you do now; you're welcome. Quote Why did I type 1945? I don't know, but it wasn't becaue of ignorance. Must have been out of brilliance then. Quote When you pointed out my error i went back, corrected it, and even added a statement to that effect at the end of the post. So what? And I am saying iwhen I inquired as to whether the skit was legit, I should have researched since I wasn't familiar with the Onion. But what is spectacular is that when a person inquires about a skit, that becomes newsworthy, when a guy claims PH was atatcked in 1945 that is ignored. Explained by the SNL skit: ....at the end of the day, we stick together.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #109 November 20, 2009 Maybe because you are the only one who thinks my transposition of a digit was something other than a simple typing error? Maybe becuse you are the only one who thinks if the keys aren't adjacent then it isn't an error and must be stupidity? Take a look around you, Lucky. Not many here siding with you. That should tell yo something about the quality and substance of your argument.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #110 November 20, 2009 This Thread = Mutual Masturbation "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #111 November 20, 2009 QuoteMaybe becuse you are the only one who thinks if the keys aren't adjacent then it isn't an error and must be stupidity? I never stated or infered stupidity; that is your word. Well, and Ron's to me a couple posts back. QuoteMaybe becuse you are the only one who thinks if the keys aren't adjacent then it isn't an error and must be stupidity? Your word. Not knowing something isn't stupidity, it's naivety, ignorance, etc. QuoteTake a look around you, Lucky. Not many here siding with you. That should tell yo something about the quality and substance of your argument. For 2 reasons: - I try to engage in enlightening issues, you make a claim, are wrong and get into the 10th division to try to bail yourself out. The 20 degree question you had is a great example, mine was a paraphrasation of carb ice as was yours of turn degrees, yet you then break into a semantic mess of ridiculous splitting of hairs. This goes back and forth and turns people off. - As with the SNL slit I posted, as one goes all neo-cons go. I would think you would quit being so petty and we dicuss issues. Don't get ridiculous as with 'ramping uo for war by sending ships to Europe and the draft.' If it wrong in large part, call it, but if it's true quit trying to qualify whether the military service was with guns or brooms. Of course you do so to run people out, all are left are the typical neo-con suspects there to back you at all costs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #112 November 20, 2009 Uhh, yeah. Right. Now back away from the donuts. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #113 November 20, 2009 Quote I was inquiring; see the question mark on the thread title? May be new to you, but that denotes a question. I see the question mark... I know what it denotes. WE all knew the Onion is a satire site and only YOU were foolish enough to buy into it. Don't blame US for YOU being taken in by a joke. Quote Now would I be surprised to see the party that thinks Obama is a Muslim terroist [SIC] also would post this; just listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter and that's what I walk away with. Wow... 100% pure partisan. I find it amazing that is the only way you can think. Quote I listened to hos as a co-worled did and I like to hear what the opposition says, unlike the RW who wants to shield out any opposing views. Your posting history seems to indicate that you DON'T like to hear opposing views. And, I don't know what hos is btw. Quote Your views seem to be in line with Limbaugh's. That does not mean I listen to him. It only means that YOU think my views align with his. I am willing to bet you don't know my views on most things and only focus on the ones you dislike. Quote I don't find a lot of agreement with much the right has to say. As for the koolaid, I'm the one mixing it; my thoughts are simulaneously [SIC] that of the left - no ear-bending. The from what you told me then, you MUST listen to the left's speakers if you have the same general leanings. Quote I see you espouse typical things from the right, how are you different from garden variety RW? For one, I don't think anyone fits just one particular mold... You seem to need to label people to feel better... No matter if that label does not fit, you try to force it to fit for YOUR benefit. How am I different than the "garden variety" RW? Glad you asked.... I wonder if you will honestly listen to the reply?.... I doubt it. 1. I don't care if gays marry. I DO think calling it a civil union would make things MUCH easier. Hell, *I* didn't want to get married; I just wanted the legal rights my wife and I now have. 2. I think some form of welfare is needed.... But I think that more focus should be on programs to get people off of the Govt tit than just hand out checks. I'd be fine with mandatory drug screening and counseling if you are on welfare. I'd rather see money spent on education to PREVENT people needing welfare. 3. I think we have spent enough time in Iraq and need to get out. You can't force others to be democratic, I can't think of a single war against insurgencies that was actually won. And the cost of the war is too high both in men and dollars. 4. I think that taxes pretty much have to be raised to control the debt... BUT I think we should cut spending first... Fix the hole in the boat before we just try to get a bigger bucket. 5. I don't care if they legalize Marijuana. And if it can be shown to provide medicinal benefits, I think we would be stupid not to look more into that. I think the States have the right to legalize it without the DEA getting involved. There are more.... As I have said time after time I am libertarian according to most tests and conversations I have had with people. But you always try to dismiss that as a Reb in disguise. To put it into "Left and Right" so you can understand; I am financially Conservative, and Socially Liberal. I see you espouse typical things from the left, how are you different from garden variety LW? Are you even going to answer this question?... I'd bet not. Quote And this is where you make yourself a centrist; you call extremists, all extremists stupid. The diifference [SIC] is that in your world, any leftist is an extremist and only abortion doctor-killers are RW extremists, all others are normal Nonsense... I think this is just you needing to label again. I think the leftist nutjob and the righty nutjob are both nutjobs. You only see the righty. Quote As fro well-known, I didn't, am I damned to hell because I didn't know the Onion was satire? No you are damned because you constantly jump on people for sources you don't like and you stupidly (not intended as an insult, just a fact) used a satire site as a reference. You are damned because YOU REFUSE TO DROP IT. Quote Yet in great cheerleader fashion you ignore your conservative bretheren [SIC] calling Pearl Harbor's attack a 1945 event. I see the fence swings one way. Nope, thats pretty stupid as well... Now show me where I have replied to him in this thread? Fact is by the time I even noticed his post you had already pointed it out and he had already fixed it. YOU on the other hand were claiming the Onion was a RW wing rag till today. And the irony score on these two comments from you are OFF the chart Quote - I try to engage in enlightening issues, you make a claim, are wrong and get into the 10th division to try to bail yourself out. I would think you would quit being so petty and we dicuss [SIC] issues. And this just shows your inability to have a discussion: Quote - As with the SNL slit I posted, as one goes all neo-cons go. Quote Nah, a typing error generally has an adjacent key-stroke, the 1 and 5 aren't that close, esp from a guy who likes to split hairs. BTW YOU of ALL people should not be bashing a guy for typo's "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #114 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour point is that you were taken by a joke and are now trying to make it look like you were not. I was inquiring; see the question mark on the thread title? May be new to you, but that denotes a question. Read post 100. You seem to have skipped that one. If it was only a question then you shouldn't have made the following comment. Yes lucky, you posted this. QuoteI think it is real and legit You really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong. No amount of spin is gonna change the fact that you screwed up. But if you wish, spin away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #115 November 21, 2009 Quote That's the brightest thing you've written yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #116 November 21, 2009 Quote Read post 100. You seem to have skipped that one. Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. Quote If it was only a question then you shouldn't have made the following comment. Yes lucky, you posted this. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. Quote You really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong. No amount of spin is gonna change the fact that you screwed up. But if you wish, spin away. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #117 November 21, 2009 Quote Quote That's the brightest thing you've written yet. I would love to take that as a compliment but coming from someone who a) Can't tell a satirical news site from one presenting real news and b) Won't admit he was fooled when confronted by the facts, your comment really doesn't mean much.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #118 November 21, 2009 Quote Quote Read post 100. You seem to have skipped that one. Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. Quote If it was only a question then you shouldn't have made the following comment. Yes lucky, you posted this. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. Quote You really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong. No amount of spin is gonna change the fact that you screwed up. But if you wish, spin away. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves. Spin, spin, spin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #119 November 21, 2009 QuoteI try to engage in enlightening issues. No you don't... or you don't try very hard. You engage in Tazmanian Devil style, limbs flying out of a tornado, tooth and nail arguments and when someone steps in to address your actual questions you stop the fight, tip-toe around that person, and continue the tornado with someone else on the other side. ...or you walk right past that person and proudly state that no answers could be given ...or you accuse Marg, of all people, of name-dropping People remember things like that. This posting style is pretty common on the internet, and the question of why people continue to respond to it is interesting to me. I think I do because I see it as a challenge in communication. If getting your point across wasn't difficult it wouldn't be worth doing. But if someone's attitude makes communication impossible, it isn't worth doing either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #120 November 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote That's the brightest thing you've written yet. I would love to take that as a compliment but coming from someone who a) Can't tell a satirical news site from one presenting real news and b) Won't admit he was fooled when confronted by the facts, your comment really doesn't mean much. I think you should take it as a compliment. Now go build me a trailer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #121 November 22, 2009 Quote No you don't... or you don't try very hard. Sure I do, I'm the one posting data and other source, weighing it out and if it doesn't meet musterI agree. Many R posters refuse to cite source on the rare occassion they even post data. Quote You engage in Tazmanian Devil style, limbs flying out of a tornado, tooth and nail arguments and when someone steps in to address your actual questions you stop the fight, tip-toe around that person, and continue the tornado with someone else on the other side. Show examples. The 2 you posted don't measure to this. Quote ...or you walk right past that person and proudly state that no answers could be given How is that walking past the issue? You example here when Mike says: Or, maybe people are tired of answering your loaded questions, then having to answer them again (and again and again) when you rephrase it to try and 'win' your point? You're citing a guy who says: - I got my source from the same place as yours, then refuses to cite his source. - Posts nominal GDP data, something that really isn't used by in the abstract and then acts surprised when you straighten him out. - Constantly runs from data Nice source and point Quote ...or you accuse Marg, of all people, of name-dropping I agree that she is a very substantive poster, but she kinda stepped in it here: LUCKY: right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it. MARG: Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger. 'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff. /Marg LUCKY: Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda? I wrote: And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. So again, you declare it does work? The results just don't pan out. Let's examine the Rational Actor Model: Rational actor model The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximisation. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes: Goal setting and ranking. Consideration of options. Assessment of consequences. Value-maximisation. The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident." Yea, so Al Quadea falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definatelt cannot. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- - - So I made my point, said she was name-dropping, and now I'm crucified for that. What you're doing is kinda being a groupie. IOW's, if Marg said, I;m good with it, don't doubt her. I think she is highly intelligent, but so was a PhD student who was my professor, he would say, "When you get a JD and PhD then you can talk at my level." He wouldn't run that shit by me, but I saw him say that to other people. I would say that you have to prove your points every time, regardless of your paper. I still feel that way, obviously you do not, you're saying, 'how dare you doubt the words of Marg-the-great.' Every issue stands on it own, regardless of the author or arguer(s). Apparently not in your world. Quote People remember things like that. And people like you argue the person rather than the issue(s). Quote This posting style is pretty common on the internet, and the question of why people continue to respond to it is interesting to me. And your style of mob-mentality is also common. I mean, it's Marg-the-Great, how can she be wrong, even w/o reading the actual issue. This is the best example of an ad hominem I've seen. Quote I think I do because I see it as a challenge in communication. How about a challenge in logic? Go address the Marg issue on yoru own. As far as the petty fighting between Mike and me, we're talking about a guy that posts wild BS and refuses to cite source, so don't waste your time. Mike is patently dishonest in his approach, Marg is very honest and empirical. Quote If getting your point across wasn't difficult it wouldn't be worth doing. But if someone's attitude makes communication impossible, it isn't worth doing either. Go look at the Marg post in question, how was I the way you claim? We were both very empirical, which are teh arguments I like. Args with guys like Beligian end up in heim getting his ass handed to him and then he dissects to the .000001% and tries to claim some technicality. I don't enjoy those, but I can't acquiesce. Finally, if you can't see yet, these internet clubs are 1 big popularity contest. For example, if Bill was just another poster with his liberal opinions, he would draw scorn and PA's. If I were a greenie, I would not. That's just 1 example of many, so juts take these with a grain of salt and quit with your ad hominems and post empirical args. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #122 November 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Read post 100. You seem to have skipped that one. Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. Quote If it was only a question then you shouldn't have made the following comment. Yes lucky, you posted this. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. Quote You really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong. No amount of spin is gonna change the fact that you screwed up. But if you wish, spin away. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves. Spin, spin, spin. I see you don't want to address your dishonesty in mis-quoting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #123 November 22, 2009 Quote Args with guys like Beligian end up in heim getting his ass handed to him Really? Where? Who was it that couldn't name all the phenomena associated with a spinning prop, let alone answer the question what effect does the direction of rotation have on the takeoff handling characteristics of an aircraft? Pretty simple question and yet you hadn't a clue other than to keep repeating "P-factor!!" P-factor!!" Yep, that is one phenomena, but you left out several others and never did address the issue of direction of rotation. But I can understand why you would be confused. You are so busy spinning your strawman arguments that any spinning prop looks stationary by comparison. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #124 November 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Read post 100. You seem to have skipped that one. Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. Quote If it was only a question then you shouldn't have made the following comment. Yes lucky, you posted this. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. Quote You really have a hard time admitting when you are wrong. No amount of spin is gonna change the fact that you screwed up. But if you wish, spin away. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves. Spin, spin, spin. I see you don't want to address your dishonesty in mis-quoting. It has already been addressed. You just choose to ignore it. Quote Lucky:I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. Quote Me:I don't care if you said it was hidden behind a shrub. The point is you said "real and legit". The rest of the sentence is irrelevant. Begin the spin cycle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #125 November 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote That's the brightest thing you've written yet. I would love to take that as a compliment but coming from someone who a) Can't tell a satirical news site from one presenting real news and b) Won't admit he was fooled when confronted by the facts, your comment really doesn't mean much. I think you should take it as a compliment. Now go build me a trailer I would be happy to. Is it to be used for transport or a specialized use? I have designed and built (quite a few years ago) trailers for everything from hauling landscape equipment to portable ANFO mix plants, water soluable oil recovery systems, and water treatment plants. My work on these included all design and implementation with the exception of programming the PLC's. Some of these cost wellover $1 million to build. I could also do repairs on airframes for you if you need any welding done. I still keep my AWS certifications current for GMAW and GTAW.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
